Loading...
2003 04-03Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting April 3, 2003 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M., on Thursday, April 3, 2003, by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Keith Borup, Jerry Centers, Leslie Mathes, David Zaremba, and Michael Rohm. Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, David McKinnon, Nick Wollen, Jessica Johnson, and Dean Willis. Item 1. Roll-Call Attendance: ___X___ David Zaremba ___X___ Jerry Centers ___X___ Leslie Mathes ___X___ Michael Rohm ___X___ Chairman Keith Borup Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to begin our regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission and start with the roll call attendance of Commissioners. Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Item 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of February 20, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: B. Approve minutes of March 6, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: C. Approve minutes of March 20, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: Borup: The first item will be approval of the minutes of our February 20th and March 20th meetings. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I have some comments on the minutes of February 20th . On the cover page, the summary page, Item 5 correctly says we recommend approval to City Council. However, what we recommended approval of was an R-8 PD zone, which is, actually, different than what the request was, but we approved an R-8 PD. That change also is true of Item 6. Change that to R-8 PD, instead of R-8. I have one other comment. On Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 2 of 81 Page 11 of the February 20th minutes, moving up from the bottom, the first time you come to Zaremba, it says motion and second to close the Public Hearing. I believe those words were spoken by our Chairman Mr. Borup, not me. Those are my only comments for February 20th . Borup: Any other comments on the minutes? That being said, I'll entertain a motion. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 20, 2003, and the minutes -- I'm sorry, February 20, 2003, as amended, and the minutes of March 20, 2003. Centers: As amended. Zaremba: March 20th was not amended, unless somebody has something else. Centers: You made a change. You said that -- Borup: Pardon? Centers: Anyway -- Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 4. Continued Public Hearing from March 20, 2003: RZ 03-003 Request for a Rezone of 0.35 acres from R-4 to O-T zones for Merlyn Schmeckpeper by Merlyn Schmeckpeper – 230 West Pine Avenue: Item 5. Continued Public Hearing from March 20, 2003: CUP 03-006 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Child Care Facility for approximately 30 children in a proposed O-T zone for Sunshine Academy by Sharon O’Toole and Debbie and James Sheridan – 230 West Pine Avenue: Borup: Okay. The first item is a Continued Public Hearing. These are Items 4 and 5, continued from our March 20th meeting, RZ 03-003, request for a rezone from R-4 to O- T zones, and Item 5 is a Continued Public Hearing for CUP 03-006. This is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a childcare facility, the same property, for Sunshine Academy. I'd like to open these two hearings. They were -- this was continued to get some more input and redesign on the Site Plan, if I read the minutes correct and remember correctly. I think we do have a new Site Plan and, Mr. McKinnon, if you would like to go ahead. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Just for Commissioner Zaremba, who wasn't here at the last meeting, a little bit of background. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 3 of 81 This is an approximately 1,450 square foot house located on Pine Street adjacent to West 3rd Street. There is a small alley, 16 feet wide, it's owned by ACHD, it's part of the right of way that they have. It's unimproved at this time. They will be required to pave that. When this project came to the Commission originally, the access to the site was only through the alley, there was no connection to 3rd Street, so it would have been two- way traffic on a 16-foot wide alley. Staff recommendation at that night was that they modify their parking and their drive aisles to accommodate a drive aisle that would come around through the alley and back out to 3rd Street to accommodate drive-thru traffic, drop off, pick up, and provide for additional parking spaces. Those changes would also accommodate an additional amount of landscaping be located on the northern -- it's kind of upside down for you guys, but north is on the bottom. It would accommodate additional landscaping on the northern portion of the property. The revised Site Plan -- I know you all have a copy of the revised staff report that I included. You should also have received a copy -- I received a copy tonight myself of a letter in response. I just read through it this evening. The letter in response is just to provide additional information. Did you guys not get that? Centers: Didn't get the revised -- McKinnon: They have got it, though. They will hand it out. It's just some additional information. I just received it tonight when I came to the meeting. It looks like the applicant will present that information, as well as hand it out to you. The modifications were made for the additional parking, add four stalls here, handicapped parking stall behind the garage, two parallel stalls on the northern portion of the property, in addition to placing the trash enclosure off of the alley. They have widened the parking from -- the landscaping from five feet to nine feet and I think the application has also -- has enough room to go one more additional foot to provide a full 10-foot landscape buffer there. As you may know, the landscape ordinance requires a buffer between land uses at 20 feet when we are dealing with residential, which is to the north, and this property, a day care facility. Through the alternative compliance section of the Landscape Code, they can request that this be reduced a certain percentage and the percentage you guys can discuss tonight. That section of the code is the alternative compliance and the portion that they are using for that is that due to 12-13-18-2C, due to a change of use on an existing site, the required landscape buffer is larger than can be provided. They have provided additional trees along the back that are closer together spaced than would typically be seen. In addition to that, which is not shown on the Site Plan, there was discussion amongst the Commission and the applicant concerning a fence to be placed at that location to provide an additional buffer. Because the 20-foot -- full 20- foot could not be provided and still, provide for the amount of parking that would be required for this project. The applicant has also revised the Site Plan to provide that access to 3rd Street, in addition to the landscaping and the tiling of the small irrigation ditch that was not shown on the previous Site Plan. Those are the changes that we talked about. The changes have been made. I know the applicant is here tonight and he can provide some additional information. They have worked with us to make the changes that were requested at the last Commission Meeting. I note at the last Commission Meeting there were no assurances given to the applicant that this project Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 4 of 81 would be approved if the changes were made. I point that out to both the applicant, the Commission, and to the people here tonight. At this time I'll end the staff report and ask if you have any questions of staff at this time. Borup: Questions from Commission? Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Zaremba: While the applicant is coming forward, I would comment that although I was absent on March 20th when this was first heard, I read all the materials that were provided. I have read the minutes of that meeting and for people in the audience, I have read your concerns that you voiced and read the petition. I appreciate them and would just say you don't need to repeat them for my benefit, because I have read them. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, there is one other thing that I would like to point out I just remembered. This project and the approval from the Ada County Highway District has been appealed to the Ada County Highway District concerning the improvements of the alley and the property, taking access off of 3rd Street. That decision has been appealed to Ada County Highway District and that will be heard on the 16th of this month at their noon meeting. I spoke with ACHD and I have also spoken with our Legal Counsel who is here tonight, with Mr. Nick Wollen, and should you wish to approve this project tonight, you could approve that conditioned upon no changes to ACHD's report. They have -- ACHD, as well, has issued a revised report allowing the 3rd Street access and, still, it's not requiring sidewalks adjacent to 3rd Street. Schmeckpeper: My name is Merlyn Schmeckpeper I'm the property owner for the subject property. Good evening, Commissioners. I'm going to try to make this as quickly -- get it passed as quick as we can, so with that in mind I'd like to read a prepared statement that pretty much covers all the issues. From the March 20th Hearing, we left three issues to resolve. Issue Number 1 was the parking requirements, requiring a re-submittal of the plat plan. Number 2, the safety issues for egress and ingress and, Number 3, were some neighborhood concerns. As to Number 1, the parking requirements, as can be seen by the new plat plan, the parking issues have been addressed to the satisfaction of the P&Z staff. We now provide six standard parking spaces, one handicapped space, and two additional employee spaces within the garage. The safety issues and the egress-ingress safety issues are resolved by addition of an access to West 3rd Street, as recommended by staff. This provides circular traffic flow, which greatly improves use and safety. The neighborhood concerns. There was some concern regarding pedestrian safety due to egress and ingress being by the alley. With the new, enhanced traffic flow provided -- provided, the addition to the access to West 3rd Street, pedestrian safety is now assured. To further alleviate neighborhood concerns, we now agree to, Number 1, increase the north buffer from nine foot to 10 foot, as you heard from staff. Number 2, we have further determined to install a six-foot privacy on the north property line. These commitments are intended to address the previous concerns of the Commission, the revised staff report dated March 26th , and the concerns within the neighborhood. These additions Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 5 of 81 do, indeed, financially impact the overall operation. However, we cannot disagree that the completed project will, in fact, be a significant improvement and benefit to the community and the neighborhood. We submit the following to you, the Commission. As you will hear from Mrs. Sharon O'Toole, on the -- the applicant for the CUP, this is, indeed, more than just a day care center. It is, in fact, a learning center for our children, which greatly increases the cost of the operation. We request that the number of children, therefore, be changed from the previously stated 30 to 38, as has been determined by the Meridian Fire Department regulations. Compliance with these regulations are required by the Idaho state licensing board that the Commission will concur with the staff recommendations and approve the rezoning and Conditional Use Permit as requested and presented. Thank you. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Centers: Yes, Mr. Chairman. At the last meeting, also, there was supposed have been an accurate measurement of the home, which would allow the number of children. Now, you're requesting 38 and I think the previous measurement you indicated it was probably 28. Maybe the CUP applicant needs to address that, but -- where the accurate measurement came from. Schmeckpeper: Well, basically, the kitchen area was in dispute or unknown by my clients, the CUP applicants, and that has now since been clarified. Borup: The state has come and done their inspection? Schmeckpeper: No. That was discussed between the CUP applicant and the Fire Department. Borup: The Fire Department did their inspection. Schmeckpeper: Yes. Borup: Okay. Schmeckpeper: And they were assured -- of course, there still has to be an inspection. Borup: Right. Schmeckpeper: So, there is -- I don't know that anyone can say it's going to be this exact number at this moment in time, but according to the regulations, the client -- the CUP applicant has determined that it will probably approach 38. She discussed the situation of the kitchen area with the Fire Department. Borup: What you're saying is they will be able to have the amount of children that the regulations would allow for based on the size of the house. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 6 of 81 Schmeckpeper: That's correct. That's correct. The financial thing -- and I'm sure that Mrs. O'Toole will cover that in much detail than I'm capable of, so I think we should probably leave that to her, rather than me stumble around and tell you something that's not true. Borup: Okay anything else for Merlyn from anybody? Zaremba: Well, I'm not sure which one to ask the question of, but let me -- Borup: Okay. He's only -- Zaremba: -- start with you. Did I hear Dave McKinnon say in wrapping up his remarks that you are challenging the access to be provided onto 3rd Street? Schmeckpeper: No. No. No. No. We agree with that. Zaremba: Oh. Okay. I thought it sounded like you were saying that. Schmeckpeper: No. I'm sorry if you understood that. No. We have worked with the staff -- well, since our last meeting here to resolve these issues. Like I mentioned, I can't argue with the overall result, once we go this way, and, as a matter of fact, I have - - I did, I thanked Dave for bringing up that 3rd Street, because it really does clean up some things that could be potential problems, even though they are financially a burden, that that has to be done. Zaremba: I see in the ACHD report, even though they haven't held their official hearing yet, that they want you to provide a sign at the exit to say exit only. You have no problem with that, I assume? Schmeckpeper: No, I don't have any problem with it, but let me explain what happened with that -- with the Highway Department, the Highway District. Zaremba: Yes. Schmeckpeper: Basically, that was closed to petition originally and we had the response that they presented to you last time, which has not changed. However, when we -- at the request of Dave -- or the Planning and Zoning staff, when we opened up the 3rd Street, they requested an amended or updated plat. I filed this plat that you see before you with them. That, supposedly, opened it to hearings because of the dates involved. However, we do have their recommendations that, basically, have not changed. Now, what has changed is they have had -- have had to open up a Public Hearing to hear or air those complaints from whoever. I don't -- as far as the one-way traffic thing, that's a bit of a surprise to me. I don't have a problem with doing that, but I think that some of the neighborhood will, because that is a public alley and it will land lock their property from use of the alley. You know, I don't personally have a problem with it and maybe these things can be worked out, too. I think that we are going to have Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 7 of 81 to revisit this with Ada County Highway District. Now, there are some approaches that could be basically implemented. My client can easily put into the contract or the documents with their clients, the parents of the children, that this is how they enter for the day care and this is how they exit. They, I don't believe, have a problem with that at all. To legally make that a one way, I think some of the people at the end of the alley -- and there is -- one of them is here tonight to present some testimony also, who is at the end of the alley. If I was him, I might have a little bit of a problem with that. I mean he can get in there, but how does he get out, unless he crosses private land. I don't know if this was an error on -- or oversight on the Highway District or not, but we do plan to revisit it. Zaremba: Just an assumption from your comments. They may be thinking that the alleyway is going to remain two-way, but only your portion of the driveway is a one way and that would mean -- Schmeckpeper: That's okay, too. Zaremba: -- the other users would still go both ways on the alley, but -- Schmeckpeper: That's fine. Zaremba: -- your users would circulate one direction. Schmeckpeper: We have no problem with that. Zaremba: And they didn't specify -- Centers: What do you make the sign read? Zaremba: Yes. I would think that not putting any one way signs in the alley, but, perhaps, putting some one way signs farther into the driveway, so that people who use the alley for some purpose, other than yours, don't see one way signs. Schmeckpeper: I have no problem with that. Zaremba: But it might be -- Schmeckpeper: You're suggesting we locate them back on our property? Zaremba: Well, they are saying an exit only has to go here and I'm -- that doesn't necessarily have to make the alley a one way. It does make this part one way. Anybody that doesn't turn in there, but continues on to some other property, would still have two way, but I can see your point, that -- Schmeckpeper: There is only one piece of property here and, then, we hit the school. Okay so, the school is fenced off. Of course, we have got a large piece of property Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 8 of 81 here where there is a four-plex and, then, of course, one on the corner. Then, there is another piece of property here that basically matches this one and, again, the school. It would be this piece of property, this piece of property, and this piece of property that would probably have the objections to it. One of those gentlemen is with us this evening and will offer some testimony. Zaremba: Well, I agree that it needs to be clarified whether they intend the alley to be one way or not. Borup: Well, yes and that's what I wanted clarify. The way I read it, they don't. I mean it says entrance that they had under their site-specific conditions was one would be an egress only onto 3rd and the other was that that is not an entrance, but an exit only -- would it be -- onto 3rd . Right. Zaremba: Which, essentially, makes the driveway on the property one way -- Borup: Yes but I don't see anything where they said anything about one way on the alley. Centers: I never saw that either. Zaremba: I think the alley can still be two way and -- Borup: Yes. ACHD doesn't -- ACHD doesn't even address that, so I don't think that's even a factor. Schmeckpeper: If that turns out to be correct, then, we don't have a problem with that. Borup: Right. They were just saying once it's on your property it is one way. Schmeckpeper: Don't have a problem with that at all. Zaremba: That sort of would be my assumption. Schmeckpeper: And, as I said, the operators of the academy, they can put that in their rules and regulations with their clients, too, and are willing to do so. We can do a little bit more than just put signage up to cause that to happen. Zaremba: So, the net result is that you don't have any problem doing the exit only sign that ACHD asked for and you would be okay with maybe putting a one-way sign somewhere in the driveway, too? Schmeckpeper: I have no problem with that. I'll hang it on our new fence. Zaremba: In the driveway, not in the alley. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 9 of 81 Borup: Probably rely on ACHD, but the way I read there -- they don't even address the alley either way. It just says that the 3rd entrance is exit only. Schmeckpeper: We can live with that. Not a problem. Borup: It doesn't say they can't exit out onto the alley. Zaremba: Right. Oh. Well -- Borup: I mean unless they -- Zaremba: The driveway does need to be one-way traffic. Borup: Right. Zaremba: Is that the way you're interpreting it. Borup: Well, that's -- Zaremba: The only thing they are doing is preventing inbound traffic off of 3rd Street. Borup: Right and no parking on the alley. That's -- I mean that's pretty clear, I think, what they state. They could change their mind. Schmeckpeper: We will clarify it with -- Borup: Yes. Maybe -- I don't think there is anything to clarify. Schmeckpeper: It wasn't quite that clear to me, but I thank you for helping us out. Borup: Don't they have -- just, really, the four conditions? Okay. Schmeckpeper: And that's, really, all I have, gentlemen, unless you have some questions. I offered you some testimony there from neighbors that are within 30-foot of our property. The photos I think speak for themselves. I'm not going to address them in any way, unless you have questions on them. Borup: I have none. Schmeckpeper: Thank you very much. Borup: Thank you. Mrs. O'Toole, did you have some additional things you'd like to add? O'Toole: Good evening. Yes. Actually, I do have a few things I would like to add. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 10 of 81 Borup: Go ahead. O'Toole: Let me address -- Borup: Could we get your name for the record? O'Toole: My name is Sharon O'Toole and I'm one of the applicants for the CUP. Pursuant to the last meeting, we also prepared some -- some prepared comments to address the issues that came up, so I'd like to share those with you. Okay. We have talked about a couple of these issues and I don't want to rehash them, but the issue of the flow of traffic through the parking lot and the issue of the buffer I think we have talked about. What I would like to respond to are some of the objections we have heard from neighbors at the last meeting and, also, the issue of how many children the center will serve. Basically, the objections came down to a couple of things. One had to do with increased traffic, additional noise in the area. There were some discussions about safety concerns. There were also some objections to changing the -- I think the comment was changing the nature of the neighborhood from residential to a mixed-use. In terms of additional traffic, my comments are that this is -- this is a very small center in terms of day care centers, whether we go with 30 or 32 or 38, or whatever the number ends up being, is still a very small center. It is true that -- I travel that road a lot, every day. It is true that between -- right before school and right after school there is quite a bit of traffic right there at the corner of Pine and Meridian Road, that's where the school traffic tends to -- most of those children arrive at school between 8:30 and 9:00 and leave at 3:30 when school is dismissed. However, our center will have clients who arrive and leave at times that are more spread out than that, they won't be congregating into that same time period. I heard a lot of comments about how congested it is right there. There is a school there and there is some traffic there, but I really, truly, believe that those comments were somewhat exaggerated. The area where the center is, is a couple city blocks away from that intersection. In terms of noise, there is an outdoor play area that will be utilized and it is right within a block of Meridian Elementary. The area that we use is separated by the building from the houses on one side and by a garage on the parking area from the house that's behind us. There is considerable buffer there. It's also a relatively small play area, which will probably be used by 10 to 12 children at one time. They are spaced out through the day. There will be children out there playing, but considering that there is a large school playground there, I don't think our ten children are going to make a lot of difference. Okay? In terms of safety, I heard some comments from neighbors about people who will just drop their children off or do anything they need to drop their children off. I really want to emphasize that that is not the case. The center will have a policy handbook that every parent receives and in there, there will be procedures for picking children up and dropping them off and that means parking your car, walking into the building, signing your child in, speaking to the teacher. It is not true that people can just drop their kids off and leave. That will not happen at all. If we have any parent who does not respect the flow of traffic through the parking lot, that would be addressed immediately by the center. It would be made very clear what the regulations are and there will be a sign posted there as well. We are in an area where there is already a 20 mile per hour speed limit due to the presence of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 11 of 81 elementary school there. We are not going to see a lot of fast traffic up and down that road at all. In terms of the nature of the area, my understanding is that that area has, for the long-term plan for that area, is to rezone it as O-T and that the intent is for it to be mixed use. We have selected that center kind of with that in mind. We wanted a center that will be part of the neighborhood, and that will have the characteristics of the neighborhood and feel homey to the children, that's why we selected and opted to do such a small center. I think that's a good area where -- I think that would be an asset to the neighborhood, I really do. In terms of the numbers, let me explain what happened with the numbers. When we originally measured the house and made our estimate of the number of children that could be served there. What we did was go in and measure each room, wall to wall, and we did not measure the kitchen at all, because, in many instances, the kitchen is not allowed to be usable space. However, this is a big open room and meals will be served in there and large muscle activities can take place in that area. We have spoken to the Meridian Fire Department and what they are telling us is, Number 1, you don't measure wall to wall in the rooms, you take the square footage of the house and you subtract those areas that are not usable. What they are telling us -- the only areas we have that are not usable are restrooms and a pantry, a storage pantry. They told us that we could use the entire kitchen space and if take that space and divide it by 35 square feet per child, we come out with 38. What I would like to do is not specify the number, but, instead, stipulate that we would abide by the number of children that the Meridian Fire Department tells us the facility is licensable for. They make that decision for every day care center in the city and I think they can make that decision adequately for us as well. Thank you. Do you have any questions? Zaremba: I do have some. While you're here, this first question is for staff. If the number changes from 30 to 38, does that mean one more parking space is needed? McKinnon: Yes. If we -- it's one for every 10 kids and if you go over five -- I mean 50 percent of the value of -- so, if they go over five more kids you have to add one space. If I remember correctly, though, they have parking right now that they aren't including in the garage that they could include. They have six spaces, no including the garage and seven if you count the handicapped space. They do have seven handicapped spaces on site -- sorry. It's going through my head right now adding it all up. One, two, three, four -- two parallels, one handicapped -- that's seven spaces, but they still meet the requirement per our code for one for each of the teachers and one -- Zaremba: Three -- McKinnon: Yes. Three teachers and up to 40 kids, that they meet the parking requirements for that, not counting any parking in the garage. Zaremba: Okay. That answers that question. O'Toole: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 12 of 81 Zaremba: The next question. The note that you handed us, comments to the staff comments, you're saying that your new plan shows a 10-foot buffer on the north property line. I assume you mean the latest plan we were shown only -- O'Toole: I changed it from nine to 10, because my understanding is we are changing it to 10, so I just went in and erased nine and put in 10. Zaremba: All right so you're comfortable with making it a 10-foot buffer, as opposed to nine? O'Toole: I think that's the current plan. Even though the site shows nine feet, we are saying there is another foot there and we can make it 10. Zaremba: Can and will do that? O'Toole: We can and will do that. Zaremba: All right. Let me ask you another question on a subject that -- I don't believe this has come up, but has come up in other day care centers. Can you show the site plan? Okay. Let me orient myself. This area to -- what would be the south and west of the house, is that an outside play area for the children? O'Toole: That will be a fenced play area, yes. Zaremba: Okay and the fence is what I was going for. O'Toole: Okay. Zaremba: We have in other childcare facilities required that it be a non-sight-obscuring fence. O'Toole: It will be a six-foot chain link fence. Zaremba: Chain link non-sight-obscuring so you don't have a problem with that? O'Toole: Correct. Zaremba: Pretty well gets all my questions. O'Toole: Okay. Borup: Okay. Did you have another question, Commissioner Centers? Okay. Thank you. O'Toole: Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 13 of 81 Zaremba: Oh, I'm sorry, I did have one more question, hours of operation? If we were to specify that it can only be like 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 P.M., is that okay? O'Toole: Our plan at this time is 6:30 to 6:00. Zaremba: 6:00 to 6:00? O'Toole: 6:30 to 6:00. Zaremba: 6:30 to 6:00. Okay. Borup: Does that answer your -- Zaremba: Yes. I assume you would not have a problem if that were made a condition? O'Toole: Not at all. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Okay. We'd like to open it for public testimony. As we mentioned last time, we have -- it was continued to get a revision of the Site Plan. We have got the previous testimony and -- so would be interested in anything new that -- I think there was a gentleman that started to come up before I started talking, if you still want to come up, sir. Schroeder: Sure. Borup: No. No right behind you. Oh, you're just letting them in. I'm sorry. Okay. Come on up. Schroeder: Thank you, Commissioners. My name is John Schroeder and my wife and I, Margaret, we own the -- I don't have the aerial, but could outline it briefly. We own the -- we own the four-plex that is -- oh, here we go. Thank you. Appreciate that. We own the -- here we go. We own this four-plex right here, we have owned it since 1984, and we purchased this property in December of 2002. I will briefly summarize -- I have a few quick comments. I don't want to take a lot of your time. I know you're busy. We strongly -- if not -- I mean we strongly support this proposal and there are reasons why. First of all, we have been a good member of this community for a long time, Pine Street has gotten very busy, and it's going to continue to be busy. It makes sense. It's a major thoroughfare. As a result, we have seen more light office come in, churches, chiropractors -- and this is a nice blend. I mean to be simple and to the point, I think this is nice. Furthermore, owning the property that I do, I was just telling the day care operators, I was happy to see that the day care was on this side of Pine, instead of over here. The reason why is because if they have latch key kids going to Meridian Elementary, I would rather have them take this sidewalk and never have to cross Pine. I have got tenants and I just don't want my tenants having to worry about latch key kids Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 14 of 81 crossing Pine in this area. I'm thrilled that it's on this side, because, then, they can literally stay all the way on the sidewalk and never have to cross Pine to go to Meridian Elementary and that is a nice plus. There are already 600 children at Meridian Elementary and they are wonderful kids. I am now in the process -- in fact, I submitted a pre-app plan to staff to put in very nice townhouses in that property I just purchased. These are extremely upscale and very nice and so I might add even if we have a day care center there, it's discouraging, very nice residential development, and my wife and I are hoping that that will occur, as you will see, it's very nice. I say that, mainly, because it's not discouraging nice residential development and I wanted to add that. The alley is -- Commissioner, I think, Borup and others pointed out I do need that two way alley, because I don't -- I'm only going to have -- what I have proposed was what is going to be -- I'm sorry. Two very nice garages on this side, on the alley side, two on 2nd . My four-plex is -- it works will with this, because my garages here are solely on 2nd and I have a fence here. I'm going to improve this fence and I don't want any access coming on here, because it puts too much pressure on that alley. I'm just going to have two garages here and two tenants that would have ingress and egress on the alley. The way that the Commissioners and the staff have devised the traffic flow is wonderful, because if they ingress here and egress here, that's going to take the pressure off that alley and work well, especially, for emergency vehicles, if that should ever arise. As I think the Commissioners pointed out, the 6:30 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. is wonderful for me, because by 6:00 P.M., it's quiet and that works. If you want to make it a provision of the Conditional Use, that would be marvelous, because by 6:00 P.M. everything is quiet and there are no loud stereos and that sort of thing going on in neighboring properties. Mr. Schmeckpeper has been a neighbor for a long time. He takes very good care of his property and he's been a wonderful neighbor. That's all I have. Thank you very much. Borup: Any questions? Centers: Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. Do you live in the area now? Schroeder: I believe in Boise. Centers: Okay. Do you intend to occupy one of the townhouses that you speak of? Schroeder: That's a good question. I'm designing those -- well, they are 1,200 square, two full bathrooms, two bedrooms, oversize garages, very nice. I'm designing them that if I ever had to reside in one I could. I wanted to. I mean I don't want to design anything that I don't want to live in and these are so nice that I could easily live in them myself. Centers: Okay. Thank you. Schroeder: Or one of my children. Centers: Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 15 of 81 Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify? Rokovitz: Good evening. My name is Rocky Rokovitz. I am co-owner of the property to the north of the proposed development. That would be this property right here. I also act as a spokesman for the folks that have signed the petition against this development. I'd like the Commissioners to note that that petition doesn't say they want modifications to this development, they don't want Variances, and they don't want it at all. Period. Which seems to be missed by the Planning and Zoning staff, it seems to be missed by the Commission Members, it seems to be missed by ACHD. It didn't say we want this development with Variances, with Conditional Use Permits, it said we don't want it. I don't want it, because my property is the most affected property of any property there. I need access to that alley. I don't want people using it for parking garages. There are utilities in that alley. It is the only access I have to the back end of my property. Any further development restricts my ability to get to the property, restricts my ability to use that property, downgrades my property in terms of value, either as a rental or in terms of selling it. It does not agree with the use that the neighborhood is now. That neighborhood is strictly residential to the tune of about 90 percent. That area is old. We have a lot of elderly people living there without children. They don't want this noise. My guess is that most of you guys wouldn't want this noise next to your house either. There have been no provisions put in for any kind of noise barriers by anybody. It hasn't been considered. It hasn't been looked at. We are going to have immediate noise -- added noise in that area once the center is opened up. I want a buffer zone. I want a full 20 feet as required. I don't want 10 feet, nine feet, five feet. There is room if you put up the Site Plan there is room for 20 feet there. This buffer zone right here, first of all, it should be evergreen trees, so that offers some kind of a noise buffer and is there year around. That kind of tree, the leaves fall off the trees. These two parking spots could be eliminated and you can get the full 20 feet. All variances to date and all changes to the plat have been in favor of the developer. Nothing has been in favor of the surrounding neighborhood. Now, by your own laws and your own P&Z requirements, you have to consider how it affects the neighborhood and how it affects the adjoining property. It affects my property probably more than the other properties. That access is public property it's not private property. That alley belongs to everybody in Meridian. It doesn't belong to one person. By making it an ingress -- Borup: That is not what is being made. You missed some of the information here. Rokovitz: Okay. How do I get to my alley? Who is responsible for snow and ice removal in that alley? Borup: The same people that are responsible right now. Rokovitz: You guys. McKinnon: No. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 16 of 81 Rokovitz: Your City of Meridian, ACHD, who? McKinnon: Ada County Highway District. Rokovitz: Okay. What's the track record of ACHD in removing snow in alleys and cul- de-sacs? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes. McKinnon: Would you like me to respond at this time? Borup: Go ahead. McKinnon: What's their track record? Rokovitz: Yes. McKinnon: There is no representative from ACHD here tonight and I won't answer for them. Rokovitz: Okay. I have an answer for you. I work as a Public Works Inspector for the Public Works Department of Boise. I work very closely with ACHD all the time, day in and day out. Cul-de-sacs and alleys are the lowest priority they have. In case of a snowstorm, they get the main drags -- Borup: Well, I think that's logical. Rokovitz: Yes, it is logical. Borup: That's the way it should be. Rokovitz: How do we access those alleys when there is two and a half feet of snow in them? How do these people drop off their children? Borup: Two and a half -- well -- Rokovitz: Who is -- Borup: I don't know if that's something we can address tonight. Rokovitz: Well, if you guys -- dropping off the children -- Borup: You're assuming there is going to be two and a half feet of snow. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 17 of 81 Rokovitz: I don't know anymore than you do but how do we drop these children off when those alleys are full of snow? Borup: At that time the operator of the facility is going to have to get it plowed and I'm sure they are going to take care of that or they are not going to have their people be able to come in. That's just like any other business. Rokovitz: It's not been addressed on the plat. It's not been addressed by P&Z. It's not been addressed by ACHD. Borup: That's not something we ever address on any businesses, whether they have to shovel the snow in their parking lots or access to get into their parking lot. That's just normal business. Rokovitz: If you're going to turn a public alley into private property -- Borup: We are not turning it into public property -- or private property. Rokovitz: Is it going to stay public? Borup: Yes. Rokovitz: Okay. Borup: That's what the whole testimony was -- Rokovitz: We are going to worry about it when the problem occurs, rather than now? Borup: Well, what should we do at this time? Rokovitz: As I understand it, ACHD acts as an advisory board to you folks and you folks contact ACHD for recommendations. I think there needs to be some communication between the two agencies. Borup: We have got a recommendation from ACHD. Yes. Rokovitz: Okay. There is nothing being addressed by either agency regarding the irrigation pipe, except that the irrigation ditch has to be piped. Borup: And will continue to flow. Rokovitz: What size pipe? What type of pipe? How much cover? It's not on the Site Plan. It's not being addressed by anybody. Borup: Is there a concern there? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 18 of 81 Rokovitz: Yes. There are ISPWC requirements that I'm very familiar with that have to be addressed. Nobody's addressing them. Borup: It has to be approved through the Irrigation District, besides the -- Rokovitz: I talked to the Irrigation District. They tell me it can't be downsized and it's got to have enough covering. Borup: Right. Centers: Can't be downsized same size that's there now. I think that's a logical answer. Rokovitz: But where is it written? It's not on the plat. It's not addressed in writing anyplace. Centers: As our Chairman just stated, that's the Irrigation District that controls that. Rokovitz: And who is going to inspect it? Who is going to keep track of it? Who is going to watch it same thing with the alley? It has to be ISPWC standards. Is anybody going to be out there taking compaction tests? Is anybody going to be out there to take core tests on paving? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, you want me to address that? Borup: Please do. Freckleton: The alley is to remain public. ACHD will take care of any improvements that are done on the alley. Rokovitz: Okay. Freckleton: State Statute, I'm sure you're aware of in your position, requires them to not impede the flow of the water in the ditch. They have to deliver the water -- the historical flow of water through that and deliver it to the properties downstream, at its historical delivery point and historical delivery flow. Rokovitz: Okay. Is there going to be provision for storm water control, erosion control, and the best management practices? Freckleton: On site? Rokovitz: Yes. Freckleton: Yes, there will. Rokovitz: Okay. Again, it doesn't seem to be addressed anyplace. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 19 of 81 Freckleton: It is in the staff report and it's Item Number 10. They have to do a detailed Drainage Plan. The drainage has to be retained on site. Rokovitz: You say in your staff report that there is not going to be any increase of noise, fumes, lights -- I don't quite understand that when we are going to have all these cars. We are going to have a security light in the parking lot, headlights in the morning. I don't follow your understanding of that situation. The staff report seems to ignore that. I would ask -- if I was granted more time and ask for a continuance of this hearing, I'm sure I could get more signatures on that petition that says we don't want this. Now, by your own rules and regulations you're supposed to take into consideration the wishes of the neighborhood. We got 12 people signed that says we don't want this, are we paying any attention to this at all? If I can get you 12 more signatures, will you pay more attention to it? How many signatures will it take? I can go out there, start pounding the pavement tomorrow, and get you more signatures. Nobody did a canvas of this area. Nobody called. Nobody sent out any surveys to see if the surrounding area wanted this. They don't. I know you're not required to do that, but as P&Z Commissioners, I thought you might be interested in what the people want. Centers: Excuse me, sir. They sent letters to all the property owners within 300 feet. That's 100 yards of the subject property. All those people received a letter. Rokovitz: Okay and you had 12 sign the petition and that's not everybody you notified, I realize. Centers: I just told you, everyone within 300 feet of that property. Rokovitz: Okay. I was talking about the petition. I wasn't talking about the people that you sent letters to. I was talking about the petition that was submitted a week ago and I think you all have copies of it. Centers: We do. We sure do. Rokovitz: You know what does it take to get the Commission to respond to the public? Does it take more signatures? More petitions? Every variance that -- Zaremba: It's a process that, actually, starts much farther back. You talk about what we are obligated to do. We are obligated to comply with Meridian's Comprehensive Plan, the recent revision went through years and years of Public Hearings and discussions, and the end result was that this area is a transition area that's designated now to be converted to what's called Old Town. Old Town is a transition zone, changing from residential to compatible businesses and commercial and that's the law that we must follow. The time for changing the Comprehensive Plan that I'm sure will go through another revision, but, unfortunately, we can't change the Comprehensive Plan by petition so more petitions aren't going to help that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 20 of 81 Rokovitz: No. I'm not asking you to change the Comprehensive Plan. I'm asking you to consider what the people want. Centers: Let me add, too, the Comprehensive Plan is not a law. It's a guide for us. It is totally not a law. Zaremba: But it went through several public hearings. Centers: Yes. I will agree with that but your comment regarding the number of signatures and you would want a continuance to get more, we had a Public Hearing on this matter on the 20th . This is the 3rd of April so, you had two weeks from then to provide more if you wanted to. However, what I have here is sufficient for me. If you -- you know, one signature is enough for me, depending on the situation. We handle each item on a case-by-case basis and there is no slam-dunk coming in the door. Rokovitz: Okay. According to your staff report is that this has to be taken into consideration before any Variances are granted, if it's going to impact the neighborhood -- Centers: That's correct. Rokovitz: Yet, there has been -- on that plat there has been variances granted for the buffer zone. There have been Variances granted -- changed from the original submittal for ingress and egress. Borup: That's not a Variance. Centers: Well, I think he means exceptions. Rokovitz: Well, change to the alley. Centers: Exceptions. Rokovitz: Exceptions. No exceptions are being granted to the neighborhood. No exception has been granted to the adjacent property owners. Borup: The first plat that was in did not even have a buffer, did not have the fence, didn't have trees, and those things were both added. Rokovitz: It says 20 feet. That's what I want. I want 20 feet. My property is the most affected property. I'm the one that's got to put up with the noise. If I put a day center next to your house tomorrow, you'd want some kind of noise buffer. Borup: Did you understand the area that the children would be outside in? Rokovitz: Yes, sir. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 21 of 81 Borup: Clear south of the garage. Rokovitz: We have already got all the racket from the school, which I could not do anything about, because the property was owned by the school. Borup: Okay. Rokovitz: That alley was not created for ingress and egress, it was not created for entrances to garages, it was -- Borup: It was not created for entrance to garages? Rokovitz: Not to the best of my knowledge. It was created for access for the people that border that property. Borup: Right. Rokovitz: It was never vacated publicly. Rohm: And it's not being now. Rokovitz: But doesn't each property owner own to the center of the alley? Borup: No. Rokovitz: If it were vacated they wouldn't get that part of the alley? Borup: I don't understand what that has to do with anything. We are kind of going in circles here again. Rokovitz: I need access. Borup: You got access. Rokovitz: At anytime we need to get in there. Borup: You got it. Rokovitz: There are utilities in there. There are fences in there. There are trees in there. There is -- Borup: We understand. That's -- none of that's changing. Rokovitz: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 22 of 81 Borup: I gave you some extra time, because you had stated that you were speaking on behalf of all of your neighbors. Is that still the case? Rokovitz: Yes, it is. Borup: Okay. Rokovitz: I don't think there is anybody here tonight that I'm acquainted with -- there is one other gentleman I know that's against it, but I don't know very many people in favor of it. Certainly, the majority is against it. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to respond to -- your comments seem to sound as if this board is not listening to any of the input from you folks. We are only taking a look at the adjusted Site Plan. I'm here to tell you that that's exactly what we are here for, is to listen to every word that you say and anybody else says. That's not to say that the final decision is ultimately going to go one way or the other, but this board is here to take -- to listen to your testimony and have done so. I think that that's the best that we can do and there you have it. Rokovitz: I appreciate your time. C. Rokovitz: Okay. I'm the other part of the homeowner there. Borup: Name? C. Rokovitz: Oh. Charlene Rokovitz. I think the thing is we are just totally frustrated, because it seemed like whatever they wanted they have been able to squeeze in there. They didn't want the 20 feet, so they go to -- you gave them -- I think it was 11 or 15 last time and, then, they went to 11. Then, they went down to nine and now they are back up to 10. It's like the buffer, I called and asked what kind of a buffer is that and the guy just really laughed, he says those trees that they have scheduled there grow about four or five feet without any branches. They lose all their foliage in the wintertime. He says they are not any type of buffer at all. Centers: Who is he? C. Rokovitz: The guy over at Greenhurst Nursery. I called over there and asked -- I got the name written at home. I talked to him and he says what you need is an evergreen and we also, you know, would like a privacy fence. The thing is, in talking to some Legal Counsel -- Borup: What height would you like that fence? C. Rokovitz: At least six foot. Borup: Okay. You got it. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 23 of 81 C. Rokovitz: And not a wire fence. Borup: Okay. Six foot solid cedar fence. C. Rokovitz: But the -- in talking to some -- some Legal Counsel, he says -- he just really laughed when he saw this and he says when did they start putting trash in amongst the buffer. He says trash bins don't go in to be hidden by a buffer. The trash should have been up by the garage. He says the same with the parking there. He says that is -- shouldn't be part of your buffer. You know, it's things like that -- we are going to be having the car doors opening and closing, opening and closing, you know, the same with -- there was 30 kids and then -- Borup: Well, I -- C. Rokovitz: And, then, we are back down to 28 and now we are up to 38. I mean it just keeps -- everything just keeps -- seems to be bouncing around and we are frustrated. Borup: My understanding is those two parking places would be for the employees. C. Rokovitz: I thought the employees were supposed to be in the garage? Borup: Some of them can be, but it doesn't -- the people coming and going are going to be pulling in up by the building, so they are not walking across the parking area. The ones down there on the north are the employees parking. C. Rokovitz: Well, as Mr. Angstman said, you know, it's still -- it's doesn't belong by the buffer and he says -- he said that we had the right, you know, to insist on a 20-foot buffer. I don't really want to have to go into a lawyer full total to try and keep this down, but we are frustrated. We are just terribly, terribly frustrated with all the bouncing around and it seems like if he comes up with a new plan or he comes up with something else -- Borup: Well, we have only seen -- C. Rokovitz: And we are frustrated. Borup: We have only seen two plans. The first one had no fence, no landscaping. C. Rokovitz: Right. Borup: The revised one has a full 10 feet with trees and a six-foot fence. C. Rokovitz: But it's -- I believe that one of your things said that they should have a 20- foot and we would really like to have that extra -- extra noise buffer. You know, I mean Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 24 of 81 that -- the school -- there is a lot of kids at school. The school does an excellent job at keeping the kids away from the house and away from the fence and out in the middle of the field. Borup: Is that your concern, ma'am, is the noise? C. Rokovitz: A lot of it. A lot of it is the traffic that's going to be there. I'm sorry. I -- Borup: Do you have any idea how much difference 10 feet would make in the noise? Have you seen any noise studies to see the difference? C. Rokovitz: I haven't. Borup: Okay. C. Rokovitz: I get -- I get a little tongue tied, so I leave a lot of this stuff up to -- Borup: I've done some calculations and -- and it's minuscule. The difference another 10 feet is going to make is -- doesn't amount to anything. The buffering -- the noise buffering is going to come from the fence and from the trees. C. Rokovitz: Well, I can't argue with you, but I still -- I still feel that we should have the 20-foot. As I said, the school keeps the kids out in the middle of their yards. There is -- and I am absolutely no good on distances. They are far more than 20 feet. They are probably 75 to 100 feet out away from the houses that they keep the kids. They do not allow them up around there. I go to Meridian all the time. My son is the one who is -- he's a single dad and he has two kids back there and, as he said last time, he has to sleep in the daytime, because of his evening work. He just happens to be on vacation here for a couple weeks. I go there all the time and visit him and I have sat there for five minutes trying to just get out of 3rd now and that has not been when school is out. That has not been when people are coming and going to pick up their kids or dropping their kids off at school. This has just been an average day. There is a lot of traffic on that -- on Pine and trying to get in and out of 3rd , I mean you sat -- like I said, I have sat there for five minutes now. Borup: Okay. We appreciate that. C. Rokovitz: And with all the extra, it's going to be more. Borup: Thank you. C. Rokovitz: Okay. Borup: Do we have anyone else? Okay. Any final comments from the applicant? You don't need to, but you have an opportunity if you'd like to sum up. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 25 of 81 O'Toole: I guess I'd like to just make one brief point about the noise and that is the children who attend the center will be playing a lot more than 20 feet away on the other side of that garage, which I'm sure you have already noted. They will be escorted in and out of the center and there will not be children running around the parking lot at anytime. Thank you. Centers: Mrs. O'Toole? O'Toole: Yes. Centers: What about the traffic? You know, you increased it to 38, so you got 38 cars coming and going four times a day, if you're having morning and afternoon shifts, and I'm familiar with Pine Street. I have a son that lives up the road from there, I know there is a lot of traffic on Pine Street, and I think you, in fact, mentioned that. O'Toole: Right. Centers: So, how do you address that that many additional cars coming in and out, when there won't be any drop off on Pine right? O'Toole: There won't be any drop off on Pine, no. Centers: Right. O'Toole: No. Absolutely. I guess I don't know exactly what you want me to address. I don't think there will be 38 cars coming and going four times. By far the majority of the children who attend the center will be there all day long, so they will be arriving in the morning and leaving when their parents get off work in the evening. Now, there may be some -- there may be a few instances of where we have a child enrolled in the early morning -- in the morning preschool and that child -- and there is a child who fills that slot -- a kindergartener who fills that slot in the afternoon from the Meridian Elementary. That will probably be a situation where the teacher walks over to the school and escorts the children back to the center. I don't see a lot of traffic in the middle of the day. I think most of our families will arrive between 7:00 and 9:00 and most will leave between 4:00 and 6:00. Those will be the times when we will have cars coming and going from the center. Centers: The heavy traffic time. O'Toole: The heavy traffic time. Correct. Centers: Right. Thank you. Schmeckpeper: Excuse me, Commissioners. I have got one quick comment. I think you're going to find that many of the people that use this center already drive up and down that street to and from work. That's kind of the habit of people, they like to hit Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 26 of 81 something on their way to and from and if there is a good day care center, they are going to probably use it. Thank you. C. Rokovitz: Can I have two quick -- real quick. Borup: You have had your chance. You have had your chance, ma'am. This is not -- C. Rokovitz: They got to. Borup: He's the applicant. They had a final comment. This is not a back and forth debate but we need to move on. Thank you. Anything else from the staff? Okay. Commissioners? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to comment on the revised Site Plan. I think that the applicant, through the last Public Hearing, listened to the testimony of all of the respondents. Tried to adjust the Site Plan to take into consideration the concerns of the public and trying to meet their objectives of having a development within the Old Town zone and still meet the concerns of the public. I think they have done a very good job of making adjustments to the site plan. They have added off-street parking. They have ingressed and ingressed, so that the flow is better than what it was before. They have expanded the buffer zone. They have added additional trees and, possibly, if the trees haven't already been purchased, maybe an evergreen is more in order. I think that the applicant has tried very hard to address the issues brought before this board at the last Planning and Zoning meeting when they presented their plan in the first place. I think they have done a very good job addressing those. Borup: And maybe this is -- just an additional comment of on that and that's on the buffer and that's -- I think Mr. McKinnon could explain it better, but when the -- the alternative landscaping, by increasing the amount of landscaping as one of the -- one of the conditions on decreasing that buffer, normal landscaping spacing on the tree would be 35 feet. These are spaced at 13 feet. It's -- what is that, two and a half times less, to get a lot more dense area. Comment on the type of trees? Commissioner Rohm mentioned the evergreen. I think that probably does make sense for a year around -- Zaremba: I would agree with that. They should be evergreen. Centers: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: On a controversial Conditional Use Permit, I have always been one to really consider the neighborhood and the people there. I think they have been there, they deserve a voice, and they deserve to not have someone move in that is not normal -- normally allowed. I have always supported accessory use permits in subdivisions when people didn't come and object. Totally in favor of when they didn't object, some one wants to have a day care in their home, fine or an expanded Conditional Use Permit Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 27 of 81 where they have 12. If no one objected in the neighborhood, fine. Let them do it. I'm not in favor of this, because the neighbors don't want it. The only reason they are going O-T is because it's not approved in an R-4 zone, which it's presently zoned as. They have to rezone to O-T to get it. My rationale is just quite simple. You have a petition where the neighbors don't want it. It's not predominant in the neighborhood. The neighborhood is predominately residential. We can't dictate by a Comprehensive Plan that we want that to go O-T and have businesses in the neighborhood. That's probably not going to happen. I guess my position is clear, I'm against it, and any motion to approve it would have to be without me. Thank you. Borup: Okay. We still have the hearing open. Centers: Right. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that we forward this application, RZ 03-003, request for a rezone of .35 acres from R-4 to O-T zone for Merlyn Schmeckpeper by Merlyn Schmeckpeper, 230 West Pine Avenue, including all staff comments and the following conditions -- Borup: This is just the rezone. Rohm: Oh, just the rezone? Including all staff comments. End of motion. Wollen: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, was that a motion for a recommendation of approval? Rohm: Yes. Yes, it was. Borup: We have a motion. Waiting for a second dies for lack of a second. Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion to deny Item Number 4 on our Agenda, RZ 03-003, request for a rezone of .35 acres from R-4 to O-T zone for Merlyn Schmeckpeper by Merlyn Schmeckpeper at 230 West Pine Avenue. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Opposed? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 28 of 81 MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAYE. Centers: Moving on. Mr. Chairman, I would like to recommend denial of Item Number 5 on our agenda, CUP 03-006, request for a CUP for a child care facility for approximately 30 children, which was amended to 38, in a proposed O-T zone Sunshine Academy by Sharon O'Toole and Debbie and James Sheridan at 230 West Pine. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Borup: Okay. That concludes these items. That's the motion that will be sent to City Council. Thank you. Item 6. Public Hearing: AZ 03-007 Request for annexation and zoning of 2.223 acres from RUT to C-G zones for Comfort Suites by Kanti Patel – west of South Eagle Road, south of East Magic View Drive on South Wells Street: Borup: The next item is Public Hearing AZ 03-007, request for annexation and zoning of 2.223 acres from RUT to C-G zones for Comfort Suites by Kanti Patel, west of Eagle Road and south of Magic View. I will open this Public Hearing at this time and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Still trying to get organized, but I do have up on the overhead right now a map that shows the area that we are looking at annexing tonight for this hotel. This property is contiguous to the City of Meridian via I-84 and the land adjacent to I-84 is zoned I-L and that's how it's contiguous to the City of Meridian. The requested zoning for this piece of property is a C-G zone, which is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The reason for the requested use on -- I'm trying to go back. It's thinking. There it is. The reason for the requested rezone and annexation to the City of Meridian with a C-G zone is so that the applicant can apply as a permitted use for a hotel facility at this location. You should have all received a submitted Site Plan. I'm sorry I don't have it on the overhead for you tonight. I can get a copy of that for those in the audience to place on our overhead and I will do that in just one moment. This piece of property, because the use itself, the hotel use that will be proposed for this Comfort Suites Hotel, is a permitted use, it would not come back to you. This would be something that would be handled at a staff level, unless you make, as a condition of approval for this project tonight, a requirement for a Development Agreement that they have to submit for a Conditional Use Permit for your further review. If you do not do this and it is not in the staff report, or requested by the staff for you to do that, the hotel could be approved as a staff level approval through the certificate of zoning compliance. This submitted site plan -- thanks, Bruce. The submitted Site Plan -- I will go to it really quick -- currently does not meet all Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 29 of 81 requirements of the Meridian City Code. The buffer between land uses along the northern portion of the property is not in compliance with the City of Meridian's Code. In addition to that, some of the parking, as you will note, is not in compliance with the landscape ordinance, there is more than 12 parking spaces linearly arranged without a break or a landscape break between those, so there are some revisions that will have to come forward with this, but unless -- like I said before, unless you guys want to see it again, you don't have to. It will be handled at staff level. It's fairly straightforward. I don't have anything else to add to that. If you have any questions for myself or Bruce, we will accept those at this time and turn the time back over to you. Wollen: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if I might ask a question of staff. Mr. McKinnon, did you say the only connection to the City of Meridian is across I-84? McKinnon: That's -- well, it's -- the I-84 -- the map behind me would help out a whole lot, Mr. Wollen, but that is the only connection with the City of Meridian would be via the freeway, which is zoned I-L. Wollen: What concerns me, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission -- and I did speak with Mr. McKinnon today about this and I didn't have this in front of me and I kind of gave him a different opinion, but through reading Title 50-5222 of the Idaho Code, deals with annexation by cities. Subsection 2 of that states: Provided, further, that said city council shall not have the power to annex such land, lots, or block or part of said city if they will be connected to such city only by a shoe string or strip of land which comprises a railroad or highway right of way. In this, I believe, there is a danger that this could be declared a shoestring annexation. Borup: Didn't you just say the property directly to the south of the freeway is city? It would be the whole length of the property. Wollen: Okay. Borup: Is my understanding. Okay. I know that was the same annexation path that St. Luke's came in on is across the freeway. We have discussed the shoestring before and they are looking about going along the highway itself for a distance. Wollen: Thank you. Borup: Rather than directly across from it and, that is correct, that all the land bordering this is city? To the south. Yes. Zaremba: And I think we have had previous discussion where an intervening canal or an intervening road perhaps -- as long as there was a property line, the property line, except for the canal or the road, which I think this means -- Borup: Yes. I think what your concern was if it came clear down the freeway for a distance and then -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 30 of 81 Wollen: Yes. Borup: Yes. We have turned down at least one that was the -- that was method to -- Zaremba: And I understand that. The way I see this, we are not using the freeway to make this comply. The freeway is an interruption to what would comply if the freeway weren't there. Borup: Okay. Centers: Mr. Chairman -- Dave, would you go back to your initial map, general location map? The parking and the buffering and planning would take care of that when it comes back to you. McKinnon: That's correct. Centers: Right. Didn't we approve a Hampton Inn right here? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, the Hampton Inn is right here. Centers: Where? McKinnon: Right there where I'm highlighting right now. Centers: Okay and this is the city property you're talking about? McKinnon: That's correct. That's the property south -- Centers: That's contiguous. Borup: -- that would bring it up through I-84. Centers: This is county right now? McKinnon: That's correct. Centers: If it complies, I don't have any problem with it. Let you take care of it later. Zaremba: Well, if it comes back to staff, does staff have the ability to do the design review that they are asking for? McKinnon: Yes. Zaremba: And to make sure that it -- even though it is a motel or hotel, that it would comply with other requirements? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 31 of 81 McKinnon: That's correct. Zaremba: Staff could do that without us? McKinnon: That's correct. Centers: But if they change their mind -- Zaremba: Happily so. Centers: If they change their mind to some other project, then, it has to come back anything other than a hotel? Borup: No. McKinnon: Without a Development Agreement, any permitted use is -- Centers: You said -- right. Permitted use. Okay. McKinnon: -- would be handled at a staff level as a Conditional Use. Centers: That's fine. McKinnon: It would go to you. Borup: Especially on property bordering the freeway. I don't think there is lot of -- okay. Does the applicant have anything they'd like to add? The applicant is not even here. Okay. Commissioners -- oh. Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Seeing none -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing AZ 03-007 be closed. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? Borup: Do we have a motion? Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of AZ 03-007, request for annexation and zoning of 2.223 acres from RUT to C-G zones for Comfort Suites by Kanti Patel, located west of South Eagle Road, south of East Magic View Drive, on South Wells Street, to include all staff comments. Mathes: Second. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 32 of 81 Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 7. Public Hearing: CUP 03-005 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for Meadow Lake Village by Hummel Architects, P.A. – east of South Eagle Road on East Franklin Road Borup: The next item is Public Hearing CUP 03-005, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development by Meadow Lake Village by Hummel Architects. I'd like to open this hearing and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Again, on the overhead I have outlined the area that we are talking about tonight, that we are really not talking about the entire area, we will basically be focusing our conversation tonight on the property just south of Franklin Road. This Conditional Use Permit is amending the original concept Development Plan, as you can see on the overhead right now. As you may remember -- as you may remember, this is a large senior retirement community that's being developed right now with a small golf course centrally located. When this originally came through there was a lot of residential uses bordering on Franklin Road, commercial properties coming in off of Franklin, off of several collector streets, for medical use, retail, and office types of uses. The applicant has since acquired an additional piece of land that makes it possible to go to this type of project now, where they can bring all of the commercial development out onto the Franklin frontage and connect the two access points together with a new public road that would be located running somewhat parallel to Franklin Road. We have asked in the staff report that road be a public road, rather than a private road, which would require, again, a Preliminary Plat and a Final Plat for the subdivision of that. That's the major reason this has been brought before you tonight, is just basically the shift of the residential to the south and the commercial to the north to be adjacent to the commercial street frontage. The second reason that this is brought in front of you is that the applicant has requested additional reduced setbacks. As you may know, those of you that were here when this project was approved, all of the houses and buildings within this subdivision are going to be owned by the developer. There are no lot lines within this development and so all the setbacks, as you will note in the staff report, are based between buildings, rather than for property line. Instead of measuring from property line, we would be looking at what one house is being constructed or the type of construction based on what's going next to it and that will determine what the setbacks are. This is a planned development. Staff does not have objections to the requested reductions of those setbacks. Finally, just one additional point of clarification for you. In the planned development ordinance it says that every time a phase of this project is approved, they have to come back with a detailed Conditional Use Permit. What is sometimes forgotten in that is that anytime they come back in with a phase that is exclusively residential, it does not have to come back in front of you as a Conditional Use Permit, it's only those uses that have non-residential use, so you won't be spending a great Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 33 of 81 deal of time in the future with Conditional Use Permits for all the residential properties. The conceptual approval took care of that. With that I really have nothing more to add. This is a fairly straightforward application, again, to just make some changes that we as staff support and ask if you have any questions of staff at this time. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Centers: Mr. Chairman, just one. You know, right now it's conceptual. Is it going to be conceptual again in the future? Are we going to see it again or -- McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Centers, you will see the detailed Conditional Use Permit for those commercial properties off of Franklin again. Centers: Okay. Borup: Does the applicant have anything they'd like to add? Swenson: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Joe Swenson and I'm the local person in charge of the Touchmark, now called Meadow Lake Village Development. First, I'm wondering would you be amenable to having three presenters if we stay within a two or three minute limit each? I would -- if not, I will quickly dish off to the architect. Borup: Maybe just -- which areas -- are there any specific areas that any of the Commissioners would like to have addressed? Centers: I remember the project, so -- Borup: So, I think at this point we'd like to keep it short. Swenson: That's fine with me. I think rather than me spend anymore introductory remarks, since you have it in your memory, I'd like to just turn the time over to Jason Butler, who is with Hummel Architects and is doing the land planning and is our commercial architect, so -- if that's acceptable. Borup: Thank you. Butler: Thank you, Joe. My name is Jason Butler I'm with Hummel Architects. Thank you for hearing this concept re-submittal. It is a significant development, but it's a significant -- fairly insignificant shift we are asking for you to take a look at conceptually again tonight. We are looking primarily at the Franklin Road frontage just to the north side of the property to push some of the commercial -- mixed use commercial to that side of the property. This does a couple of things. It buffers back that residential retirement portion of the site back off of Franklin Road and this isn't your typical subdivision, it is an age-restricted retirement community. It also -- Boise City limits are Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 34 of 81 directly -- immediately to the east of the site, it creates a very welcome entry into the City of Meridian as you move from the east side and with that mixed use commercial fronting on Franklin Road and the entire development is very much a community within a community concept. It's first priority is to self-sustain the inhabitants of that community and provide them with the amenities and the services that a retirement community needs, such as a mixed use commercial portion, as well as supporting some of the hospital services that exist now and in the future. That is the -- simply the concept re-submittal that we are asking you to approve this evening. With that, we will turn it over to Dean Briggs of Briggs Engineering with a couple other items. Briggs: Good evening my name is Dean Briggs, Briggs Engineering. I have had the pleasure of being on this project through its conception and I have just one item to go over as it relates to the conditions. Originally, this concept was broken into a multitude of phases and as this project has progressed and as it's -- we have added a little more area to it. The plan has moved the commercial to the front there is just one item in the Development Agreement that we'd like to shift from Phase 2 to Phase 3. That's the construction of what was called Road H, it's the second connection to Franklin Road on the east side. We'd like to request that that Road H in that connection be allowed to be shifted to the third phase. As a second phase we will be concentrating on the west side of the property and not the east. In your packet there is the latest addenda to the phasing schedule and on Page 3 I have circled the numbers that this affects as far as phase two and underlined on items one and ten the specific items in that -- in those two items that we'd like to shift into the third phase. The front sheet is a -- just that request and maybe some verbiage that you might want to look at. Centers: Have you given this to staff? Briggs: I have not. Centers: That's the important the man over there. Borup: So, this has not been discussed with staff prior to tonight? Briggs: I'm not sure. I didn't. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I haven't had a chance to review it yet. The only comment that I would really make at this time is whether -- I'm not sure whether or not that would affect the fire department's typical request for two access roads into the subdivision once they get over a certain threshold, typically 50 houses. That's something that I'd like to just look into, if I could just have a moment to look at it. Briggs: There is -- at present there are two access points into the subdivision. Borup: Counting St. Luke's you mean? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 35 of 81 Briggs: Counting St. Luke's. Borup: A private road. Briggs: It's a private road. McKinnon: Have those roadways been constructed -- I'm sorry. Mr. Chairman, if I could address the applicant. Have those roadways been constructed? Briggs: Yes, they have. McKinnon: Okay. Centers: Well, they may be private, but it's not private when the Fire Department drives over it. Borup: Right. Right. Briggs: Yes. It's a joint use access road between Meadow Lake Village and St. Luke's. Zaremba: And it's not access controlled. Briggs: No. Centers: I know when we first saw this -- and I will say it again, I think we are lucky -- lucky to have this in the City of Meridian and it's not a little further east in the City of Boise. Of course, there is no land further east. Houses, isn't it? Briggs: It's all houses. Centers: Yes so I -- but I feel we are lucky to have it here and it's -- but the other presenter said something about -- instead of retired people or -- how did he put it? Rohm: Age limit. Centers: Yes. Age limit. I don't like that name for it either. Briggs: Age advantaged? Centers: That's better. Anyway, I like it. As long as you can keep staff happy. Briggs: We try. Borup: I was just -- on your phase -- on your phasing for that second phase, is there a time -- there is probably not a time line, it's going to be as development reaches that point and -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 36 of 81 Briggs: Actually, in the Development Agreement there are some time lines for each phase. Phase 2 -- Borup: Well, Phase 3 begins summer of 2006. Briggs: Correct. One of the other reasons we are trying to delay that intersection a little bit is that there is another Franklin Road project coming that will fill the gap and we are hoping that they will get that online, so that we can kind of coordinate those two. Borup: That makes sense. Okay. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if I could address the applicant. Could you -- in the -- on Page 3 -- Briggs: Yes. McKinnon: -- you have circled Item Number 7. This is just for clarification. I really don't have any problem with the requested change that you have. I was just wondering the landscaping along Franklin adjacent to Phase 2, I'm going through your addenda to the phase -- and, of course, we don't have that same road system that you guys are proposing now on your addenda. Phase 3 just -- I'm going to use my pointer I'm going to turn you around. Briggs: Okay. McKinnon: This phase is talking about phasing the landscaping from here east that you don't want to do on Franklin as part of phase -- Briggs: I think Phase 2 landscape was 200 feet either side of Franklin -- for Franklin Road interchange. It wasn't the whole frontage it was just that piece. McKinnon: So, you want to move the landscape improvements on Franklin to Phase 3? Briggs: Right. Borup: Beginning in the summer of 2006? Briggs: Right, because Phase 3 is in that area. McKinnon: Okay. All the commercial projects within this would also be part of that third phase, then? Briggs: If they can sell them. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 37 of 81 McKinnon: Okay. That's just a clarification. I don't have any problem, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, with that request. Zaremba: I think the only issue I would have is probably semantics in that you requested that these requirements be deleted. Even though it says deleted in this phase, I would rather replace that with saying that these requirements be shifted to Phase 3. Briggs: That would be great. Zaremba: Deleted is too big a word for me. McKinnon: I agree. Zaremba: And if that's the point to shift them to Phase 3, I think I'd rather have it said that way. Briggs: Great. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, again, I have a question for the applicant. Would it possible for us to get a revised Phasing Plan before we go to Council with this project? Briggs: Yes, it is. McKinnon: Okay and, if so, we'd request that you submit that to the City Clerk's Office at least 10 days prior to the next hearing. Briggs: Okay. Sounds good. McKinnon: Thank you. Borup: Any other questions from the Commissioners? Centers: Just one last question. Have you had any pre-sales? Briggs: Of? Centers: Residences. Unidentified Speaker: We have had 17 reservations. Centers: Good. Excellent. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 38 of 81 Borup: Okay. Anybody else want to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? Dave, you'd like to see a phasing plan 10 days prior to the City Council? McKinnon: Yes. The phasing plan that was attached was off of the old plan. They need to submit a phase plan. Borup: Okay. McKinnon: In addition to that, the comments made by Commissioner Zaremba to shift that to the third phase, I support that as well. Borup: Right. Okay. Centers: I would move we close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of CUP 03-005, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for Meadow Lake Village by Hummel Architects, PA, east of South Eagle Road on East Franklin Road. To include all staff comments, and to include the applicant's April 3, 2003, request for a modification to the Development Agreement, in that they wish to shift some items mentioned in their memo to Phase 3, instead of Phase 2. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? Zaremba: And to supply the staff a new phasing plan 10 days prior to the Council hearing. Centers: Second. Borup: Okay. Motion and second. Any other discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 39 of 81 Item 8. Public Hearing: CUP 03-004 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a childcare facility in an R-4 zone for Building Bridges Child Development Center by April Reynolds – north of West Ustick Road, east of North Ten Mile Road and west of North Towerbridge Way: Borup: Okay. The next item is Public Hearing CUP 03-004, request Conditional Use Permit for a childcare facility in an R-4 zone for Building Bridges Child Development by April Reynolds. This is north of Ustick Road and east of Ten Mile. I believe at the entrance of Bridgetower. I'd like to open the Public Hearing at this time and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Again, I'll start with the overhead. The bolded area is the site that we dealing with tonight and as Chairman Borup noted, that this is, basically, at the entrance of Bridgetower Subdivision. The subdivision is these three small lots just south of Bridgetower, actually called Primeland Subdivision. They were included as part of the Planned Development for the overall Bridgetower project and they are the accepted land uses that they were allowed in the R-4 zone. I have a Site Plan in front of you. There is a number of things that I'd like to point out at this time that have to deal with the staff report prepared by Steve Siddoway. If I could have you turn to page two of the staff report, under finding -- standards for Conditional Use, Finding A, it's in reference to whether or not the site is large enough to accommodate all proposed use yards, open space and parking, landscaping and other features. I want to emphasize parking with this, because this is where Steve has asked me to address with you tonight concerning the parking. We have talked about a day care facility tonight and they mentioned that theirs was a small day care facility. This is a big one this is over 200 children. With over 200 children, there is a requirement for one parking space for every 10 children, plus one for each employee. According to Steve's math later in the additional considerations portion of this property, they fall short by approximately 12 spaces on this site. Without a Variance from the City of Meridian to allow reduce parking, this project does not have, as this finding requires, a site that is large enough to accommodate everything for their use. Without a Variance, as Steve points out in his report, this project would not be able to meet the findings required for a Conditional Use Permit. When you make your recommendation tonight, keep in mind your concerns, your comments about whether or not you would support that to the Council and whether or not that's something that you feel is a good thing to do, a good precedent to set to allow reduced parking for a Variance. As you know, the Variance report will not go to you, it will go straight to the Council. This is your only time to voice your opinion on this, unless you want to come to the meeting and testify in front of Council. Borup: Mr. McKinnon, maybe while you're on that I had a question pertaining to that item and that is if the use changed -- I mean this is an L-O zone. McKinnon: That's correct. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 40 of 81 Borup: You know, conceivably, it could change to an office building in the future, but what would be the parking requirement if it were a change of use? McKinnon: Seventeen. Borup: If it was an office? McKinnon: That's correct 1,600 square feet divided by 400 you end up with 17. Borup: So, it would go down. This would be -- there wouldn't be another use that would be more intensive than this? McKinnon: That's correct. This is probably one of the high -- more intense uses that could be allowed on this site. Borup: All right. Thank you. Centers: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I had a question along the same line, exactly, because it may not be used for that forever and I thought the 25 was awful strict. Can you point out -- because, in my opinion, most of the use of this day care center will be that neighborhood, Bridgetower, Lochsa, you name it many, many others. Can you point out the drive-in and the drop-off? McKinnon: Well, going in off the -- Centers: Well, on the -- McKinnon: On the Site Plan? Centers: Yes on the Site Plan. McKinnon: They will come in and they will drop off right here at the front door. This is where I was going to go with the additional comments on parking. The drive aisle within this project is actually reduced for these four parking stalls right here, because the drop off and loading area is bumped out from the rest of the project by approximately -- I think it's three feet. I'd have to refer to Steve's report. It's bumped out, so this is actually reduced less than 25 as required by code. You will pull in, drop off right here at the front of the building, pull through, and, then, come back around and out. You can see the project line -- the property line running -- it's right in the middle of the parking here. All the parking is in this area. It does not include the parking on the south side of this map that we have in front of us. This parking area -- these four spaces are, actually, going to be reduced by more than just the three feet for the bump out of loading, but when vehicles stop to park here these vehicles will not have full -- or even a reduced amount of area to back up into. We have -- you know, as a city -- the city has approved many projects where we have had 17-foot stalls with two feet overhang into the landscaping -- or we would even go the compact route, which would require a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 41 of 81 shorter distance and both of those issues are addressed within the report, which you all have. There are some parking issues at play here. In Steve's staff report in the site- specific conditions of approval he did not make a requirement for these to be elongated or for anything to happen. In fact, he just mentions in the additional considerations that you should address that and whether or not you'd like that changed. It's up to you at this time to make that -- it would have to be an additional comment that Steve has not made in the staff report right now. I was going to ask you to turn to Page 4. We are going to get right into your question, Commissioner Centers. It was Item Number 2 on Page 4, additional considerations, and it has the concern of the drive aisle. Again, there is some discussion there concerning compact spaces and the loading and unloading area. It basically affects just the four parking stalls on the south side of the project. I would point out that in additional considerations Number 2 the final sentence that says see Site-Specific Requirement Number 2. It's, actually, supposed to read see Site-Specific Requirement Number 3, in case you're confused. Then, onto setbacks. There are some minor issues with the setbacks. This is in an R-4 zone and there is a requirement for them to be setback a certain distance and, as you may recall, when Bridgetower and Primeland were approved, the landscape buffer was actually placed in a common lot. Rather than require the building to be setback 25 feet or 30 feet from the landscape buffer, they decided to count the landscape buffer or landscape lot as the set -- include that as part of the setback from the street. Rather than having a 60-foot, basically, setback, they are 30 feet off of the main entrance to Bridgetower and the building official agreed with Steve and I would add my support for that as well, that that would be approved that way. Again, the numbering is a little bit off and Steve's got all of the site-specific requirements for all these additional considerations are off by one number, so in case you're keeping track, as you're trying to go back and forth. We do have a project that -- to give you a little bit more information, we have some elevations. This is a fairly large project. Staff would support this project, if a finding -- if a variance could be approved by the City Council. The Variance report has not been written. The requirements for -- the findings for issuing a Variance are fairly well known and so the applicant will have to come forward with an application for the Variance to allow this to happen and it will have to be reviewed by the City Council. If you will just go to the very end with the recommendation, the Planning and Zoning did recommend approval of this application with the aforementioned conditions. I should note, again, that's considering a Variance being approved for this project. Without a Variance being approved for this project, the findings could not be met and the staff would have to recommend denial based on findings not being able to be met by this application. If you have any questions of myself or Bruce at this time, we will entertain those, and turn the time back over to you for your Public Hearing. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: I do have a question that I don't know whether can be answered or not, but there is a large childcare facility on Franklin, the castle facility -- Dreamland I'm told it is. On the occasions, that I drive along Franklin passed that, their parking lot is empty. I probably don't have a problem with reducing the parking requirement on a similar project. I don't think I have ever seen that one filled. I guess my question is has Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 42 of 81 anybody done any real study of it, other than just my anecdotal driving by it once in awhile? McKinnon: To answer your question, we have looked into it. We, in fact, contacted Dreamland day care to find out what kind of parking situation they have and in the rush morning they do somewhat fill up, they don't entirely fill all their parking areas, and we have asked the number of children that they watch and it's around 125, give or take, based on, you know, parents dropping children off on a day-to-day basis. This is a little bit larger project and it has the drop-off area. The drop-off areas do tend to cut down on the number of parking stalls that are needed. The reason for the Variance and the reason you can't grant the waiver for this is the code doesn't allow for that and you could, you know, make your recommendation to Council, that would be something that you approve, but it can't be approved by this body, because it goes directly against ordinance. Zaremba: Thank you. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Yes. I would agree with Commissioner Zaremba and I have a day care on Overland just outside my subdivision that was approved sometime ago and very few cars in their parking lot and you see it, too, Commissioner. My question -- on Page 4, Item Number 2, we would pretty much have to include that in a motion, the middle of that paragraph, in order to comply with -- in order to allow the applicant to comply with Site-Specific Number 3 correct? McKinnon: That's correct. I got it circled just like that. Centers: All right. Thank you. Mathes: Dave, I have a question. Whose parking is that that's on the bottom? Is it just not there right now? McKinnon: It's that property owner. Yes. It's not there right now. Mathes: It's just bare land right now? McKinnon: That's correct. The only thing that's built in this subdivision is Cox Dental. It's the Italian looking building that's located -- Zaremba: If that's being used as an egress, I assume there is a Cross-Access Agreement? McKinnon: That's what Bruce was just whispering in my ear. That's correct. Zaremba: I must have heard him. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 43 of 81 Borup: Okay. Does the applicant have anything they'd like to have in their presentation? Come forward. Juarez: Yes. I could probably answer of those questions and clarify a few things. My name is Brandon Juarez I'm the real estate development consultant for April and Tyler Reynolds. April couldn't be here tonight, but her husband is, Tyler. We had a tough time designing this project from the get go. Dave, can you put up the Site Plan real quick. Originally, the Site Plan by the developer showed the buildings in this area here. There is a 20-foot landscape easement across the back and we couldn't -- we couldn't really go into that, even with the parking here. The type of use that this is, is a day care facility where you -- a lot of the mothers like to drop their kids off -- we wanted to be able to -- the kids usually sit in the passenger seat or in the back seat, passenger seat. The idea was that they come in, they are here, maybe stop their car for a minute and run out, put their kid in, and, then, egress back out. Well, we couldn't turn -- have a turning circle here in this part of the property, because of the landscape easement, and so we contacted the developer and asked them for a Cross-Access Agreement. He agreed that that would be a good idea and would be a better use, because this property to the south, actually, you would want to put your building on the frontage to get more visibility. We were able to make those agreements with the developer. The other thing is this 23-foot was inadvertent. We meant to have 25-foot all the way across there, there was, really, no discussion. I mean in one of the items here, I think Steve's mentioned that -- I don't know how -- I don't know what the additional considerations -- or what all that means, but in Number 2, the minimum drive aisle, which is 25-foot per ordinance, we have no problem complying with that. We didn't mention that in our plans, nor do we intend to not comply with the ordinances. We have no problem with all the additional considerations or site-specific requirements that are required. Anything that is not clear in the site plan was done inadvertently. Borup: The additional considerations are kind of discussion items for clarification. Juarez: Yes. Borup: And those that are either pertinent or necessary are included all in the site- specific requirements. They are there just -- a lot of it is information for the Commission and things we -- Juarez: I'm not sure if David said this correctly or incorrectly, but we did submitted for the parking Variance. I thought he said that we would have to, but we already did, right? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the report just hasn't been written yet, so we haven't been through the findings. Juarez: Oh. Okay. Well -- Borup: That would go to City Council. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 44 of 81 Juarez: Right. Borup: We wouldn't see that application anyway. Juarez: Yes. I know. They explained that to me and I just wanted to make sure that you knew that we were -- when we talked Mr. Siddoway, he wanted us to submit these concurrently, so that they would run concurrently. That's what we did, to be able to comply with everything that the planners wanted us to do. I thought I heard him say that it hadn't been submitted yet and I'm like, well, wait a minute, I thought we did that, but he clarified with saying that he hadn't written the report yet and that made sense to me. Borup: So, essentially, you're in agreement with all of the -- with the staff report? Juarez: Yes and I'm, actually, also in agreement with the observations that the Commission has brought up in terms of the parking. We struggled with this quite a bit. We -- the parking requirement is based on a -- like they said, one car for every staff member and, then, one car for every ten students and how do you arrive at the student number was the trick. Well, there is really no hard and fast rule to arrive at that. It's basically a square footage and in the codes it really doesn't say gross square footage, but it doesn't say net square footage either, it just says square footage of, you know, 35 square feet per child. In reality, a lot of the centers -- I think the one that was brought up tonight, the one with the castle on it -- Dreamland. That is a 7,400 square foot facility. I think it has 17 parking spaces that I counted or 20 -- around 20 parking spaces, nineteen or twenty. One just south of the freeway -- Borup: That was 7,400? Juarez: Yes. Borup: And you're 68 now? Juarez: Right now, yes. Yes. The one south of the freeway called the Learning Garden, it is a fairly new facility, just approved, and that has 5,400 and it has 17 parking spaces. They are licensed for -- I think they -- I was talking to the director and she said they came into City Council with 90 approved kids and -- but they are licensed for 137 kids. You guys were right on when you're talking about this, because it's very hard to live up to this ordinance and we are trying to be as honest as possible. We are not going to have 200 kids in there. We're not. We have the square footage, probably, to accommodate that, most of them will be part-timers before kindergarten or after -- after early morning kindergarten they will come in and be in there, but -- so it's kind of a -- you know. I asked Steve if I should try to submit something to modify the ordinance, but, you know, Tyler is not paying me to do that, so I don't -- he's only paying me to get this approved and that's it. I think you guys are right on when you talk about the parking. Is there anything else I can answer? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 45 of 81 Borup: Any other questions? Juarez: Thanks. Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Centers: Mr. Chairman, I have a question of staff. The building itself is a gross 6,500 square feet? McKinnon: That's my understanding. Centers: And you divided that by 35 because you do subtract out the bathroom facilities and I think you subtract out the hallways and the pantries. McKinnon: I just did the math and it comes out 185. Centers: Yes. I did the math on that, too, and they haven't subtracted out the bathrooms. McKinnon: Correct. Centers: Hallways so, I don't think we should put a number on it, I think we should approve it per the maximum allowed by the state and the fire department. McKinnon: I would be in agreement with that. Centers: Yes. Zaremba: Well, if the number of children is reduced, that, additionally, reduces the number of parking spaces. That makes their request for a Variance even a smaller request. Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing be closed. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would like to give this a stab and recommend approval to the City Council for CUP 03-004 request for a Conditional Use Permit for a childcare facility in an R-4 zone for Building Bridges Child Development Center by April Reynolds. North of West Ustick Road, east of North Ten Mile Road, and west of the North Tower Bridge Way, including all staff comments, but, as previously mentioned, the maximum of children would be dictated by the Fire Department and the state approval authority. I would want to include from Page 4, under additional considerations, I would want to Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 46 of 81 include that the four parking spaces south of the loading area be allowed to be utilized as compact, with a nine-foot width and a 16-foot depth. That could be added to Site- Specific Requirement Number 3. Including all staff comments end of motion. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? One minor thing that -- I don't know if this will affect writing up the findings Item B under standards was a typo. It looks like a carryover from a previous application. Centers: I accept that correction. Borup: That may want to be corrected before it goes to City Council. Zaremba: The second accepts the amendment. Borup: All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission? Borup: Yes, Mr. McKinnon is this on this project? McKinnon: Hold on. Borup: We will have a short recess. Let's go ahead and have a formal short recess. Thank you. (Recess.) Item 9. Public Hearing: CUP 03-010 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to obtain a Dealers License and sell quality used cars and trucks in an I-L zone for Finish Line Automotive by Lyle Lee Kallenberger – 44 Northwest 10th Street: Borup: Okay. Thank you. We'd like to reconvene our meeting and start with the next Item, Number 9. CUP 03-010, request for a Conditional Use Permit to obtain a dealer's license and sell used cars -- quality used cars in an I-L zone for Finish Line Automotive. We'd like to open this hearing and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. As usual, I'm going to direct your attention up front to the overhead, give you an idea of where this project is located. It's basically on the corner of Franklin and Northwest 10th Street. As -- just from driving around, you may remember that this piece of property is currently vacant, except for the far eastern portion of the property, which is, actually, enclosed by Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 47 of 81 a chain link fence with slats. It's being used as a storage yard. The rest of it is vacant. We will go forward. This might help you out a little bit. This is the submitted site plan proposed by the applicant. Again, this area is currently being used for storage. There was a Conditional Use Permit issued for that for the use of storage. Landscaping was installed, the slating was installed, and the applicant is including this as part of the entire project, because it's on the same piece of the property, but the use for the storage in this bullpen area will continue. It won't be affected by the application for the used car sales. Used car sales will access off of Northwest 10th Street. In the staff report, you will note that Wendy Kirkpatrick, the author of the report, has requested that the driveway be reduced from 40 feet down to 35 feet, as submitted. The reason for that is to better define ingress and egress points into the parking lot, rather than have it would open, everybody can come in and come out as they please into the project. There is an additional driveway on the property located on the north side of the property that's currently asphalted that runs back to the storage, back to the gate, so that they can access that and there will be, basically, a roundabout there. Per State Code, they are required to have five parking spaces for retail sales of vehicles. They have provided those as close as they can to Franklin, without having to tile the large ditch that's located -- and that's the Ten Mile and that's located right there. The applicant is not wishing to tile the ditch at this time. They are requesting the use of a small temporary trailer at this time, rather than building a large facility or a larger office building, they are requesting they have just -- I had some pictures earlier of the type of trailer that they have. I do have elevations and I could put those on the overhead if I could get Bruce to help me out with that. A couple of the changes that will need to be made to make this comply with code would be the additions of a couple more parking spaces. Per our ordinance, in opposition to the State Code, in addition to the five parking spaces required for the sales lot, they are required to have one parking space for every three vehicle sales locations. They are required to place two additional parking stalls. Centers: Excuse me so a minimum five, plus one for every three cars? McKinnon: That's correct. So that's -- Zaremba: While we are on the subject, can I ask you a question? McKinnon: Sure. Zaremba: Just referring specifically to Page 4, Site-Specific Requirement 1, which is about parking? McKinnon: Correct. Zaremba: Which states just what you have said. If they have five cars on display, then, they, in addition to those parking spaces, have to have two customer spaces. My question is if they are going to have a sales building, where do the employees park? Shouldn't there also be -- isn't there a number in addition to this that -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 48 of 81 McKinnon: Per our ordinance there is not a requirement for that. Is that a good idea? I would probably tend to agree with that. There is not a requirement that all five of those spaces for the commercial lot be used for sale vehicles. However, the state requires them to have five for that. The parking would be in addition to that. The -- Section 11 -- I think it's 14 of our code that deals with the parking does not address parking for the -- for the employees of the project and perhaps that's part of what the one for three would include. We, typically, don't see a car lot this small in nature. Zaremba: But wouldn't you say that there is going to be even a temporary building, if it's an office trailer, that the square footage of that requires a parking space or two? Centers: Well, it says that. Third -- Zaremba: Did I miss that? Centers: Right here. Zaremba: No. That's customer parking. Centers: Two spaces -- oh, excuse me. Customer parking. McKinnon: It's two spaces for customer parking. Zaremba: And that's only related to how many cars are for sale. Centers: Excuse me. Zaremba: But I'm saying in addition to that, there is employee parking that would be related to the square footage of the building. McKinnon: For the office? I won't disagree with that, Commissioner Zaremba and additional parking space for that would be very appropriate. It should be -- Zaremba: So, we are, really, looking for eight parking spaces. McKinnon: We have six on the plan right now, counting the one handicapped stall and so rather than eight, it would be nine, if you wanted to add two additional to that number. Borup: Isn't there seven there now? McKinnon: Seven so, essentially, we would be looking at adding two more, which I think, is what the staff report requests so the addition of two more parking spaces. Borup: Which would make nine. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 49 of 81 McKinnon: Right so, we have got five, plus the handicapped. The handicapped is -- Borup: Was there two there? I mean there is one on the other side of the handicapped also, isn't there? McKinnon: I'd like some clarification from the applicant on that, dealing with the drive- thru to the other drive lane. If there is going to be parking there, I think that there should be some sort of blocking curb to keep vehicles from going out into the drive lane. Without that being shown on the Site Plan, I would assume they were counting on people being able to pull in and use that for turn around and be able to come out through this exit. If there is -- like I said, the applicant can clarify that, to state that -- whether or not that is included as part of one of their parking stalls. Mathes: Did they ever state how many cars they were going to sell? McKinnon: I think that's a question best asked of the applicant. Mathes: Okay. McKinnon: I believe that they show the five spaces and the anticipation is those five spaces -- in the future, they want to build a larger office at this location, so in the future they would like to grow and have additional vehicles for sale. At this time, the state requires that they have the five spaces and they didn't indicate that they wanted to sell more than that at this time, based on the parking that they have provided. Just jump right to that. Currently, this area that they have shown -- you can see the arrows that point around -- this site is unimproved and they want that to remain in gravel. One of the site-specific conditions of approval that Wendy included in her report was that they post that for no parking at this time and it would have to remain free of the weeds, just like our code requires. If we add the additional parking spaces, these trees would probably have to be moved to the east in order to accommodate the additional parking, unless additional parking was located into this area where we currently have the unimproved area and the applicant can address those. I have spoken with the applicant during the break and he said he has read the staff report. He is in agreement with the staff report and the changes that we have requested are something that they can accommodate. Like I said, he is here tonight to answer your questions. Just a couple other things to add before I turn the time back over to you. This project is somewhat developed already and so it doesn't currently meet the landscape ordinance part of the development. When the Conditional Use Permit was approved for the storage area, there was a requirement for a certain number of trees, one for every 1,500 square feet of asphalt, and there was no specific required landscape buffer on Franklin Road. There currently is required a 25-foot landscape buffer. In order to bring this site into complete compliance, the fence would have to be shifted back 10 feet or to the alternative compliance section of the code, stating that, you know, you have, again, a change of use on the property that what's there could be remain. Furthermore, there is a requirement for five feet of perimeter landscaping adjacent to all drive aisles and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 50 of 81 parking, even in the industrial zone, which cannot be accommodated right now as the site currently exists, because of the asphalt paving on the north side of the property. The landscaping on the east side meets it and we can come very close with some modification of the depth of the landscaping based on the location of the Ten Mile ditch. Again, this is a project that is being requested for a temporary trailer. They do not intend to have the trailer there for some -- for a long period of time and if you'd like to set a specific time frame for allowing that, that is something that you are allowed do as the Commission. There is a requirement that the trailer hook up to city water and sewer. No chemical bathrooms would be allowed in this location. I'd ask if you have any other comments or questions for Bruce or I concerning the staff report and turn the time back over to you for your Public Hearing. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Centers: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McKinnon, where do you talk about the trailer? I was looking for it. I know that we put a time limit on those kinds of things. Do you have it in the staff -- McKinnon: Wendy did not include that in the staff report and that's why I pointed that out to you, in case you wanted to add a time frame you could and that's well within your rights. Centers: And the time frames normally are 18 months to two years? Isn't that typical? McKinnon: I have seen them go from one year to two years. Centers: Yes. We have done those with subdivisions and -- McKinnon: That's correct. Centers: Where did you say that you wanted them not to park in this area? McKinnon: That's correct. They don't plan on improving that area right now, just to leave that gravel, and our code requires that parking be on asphalt, rather than on gravel. Centers: Is he able to get in this way? McKinnon: He's able to get in the whole length. This is just a proposed future building, so they have got this whole home access that's completely open at this time. Centers: Are these giant Sequoias or do they -- because he can get back here, but you're telling us to tell him that he can't park on own property? McKinnon: That's correct. According to our ordinance. Through the Conditional Use Permit, they could do that. I talked with Wendy a little bit about maybe requiring an Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 51 of 81 extruded curb here and here to keep the people from being able to access that to park at this time, because their only portion of the project they want to develop right now is right here. Centers: Well, I think that would solve Commissioner Zaremba's problem. That would - - certainly he would be allowed, as the owner or the salesperson, to park back there. I mean how can you prohibit -- I can see we would just prohibit customers from not parking there, but, as the owner, he should be able to park on his own land. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, the ordinance would require that if he wants to park on it, he asphalts it. We have no problem if he wanted to asphalt it. It's just the ordinance that requires that through the Conditional Use Permit of that. Centers: I understand where you're coming from, but -- Borup: That's not any different than -- or I mean not much different than last week on the contractor's yard. Centers: Yes, but there was traffic -- we were talking traffic on that. Borup: Well, the offer was there, too. You might want to -- Centers: We made an exception for the car lot down the road -- and I forget the name of it. He's on the other side of the road, up Franklin -- McKinnon: Centennial? Centers: There you go. He had 15 feet and we made the exception for him. That was sometime back. Remember that? Borup: Yes because it was already in existence before the ordinance changed. Centers: And this is the case here. This is already in existence right? We have an improvement to the property, don't we? McKinnon: Currently? Centers: I mean this proposal makes an improvement to the property. McKinnon: That's correct. Centers: Okay. Thank you from what it looks like now. Mathes: How wide is the existing paved driveway? McKinnon: I'm sorry? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 52 of 81 Mathes: How wide is that existing paved driveway? McKinnon: I believe it's 20 feet in width. Mathes: They can't park on it? McKinnon: It would block access to -- Mathes: To his property? McKinnon: -- to his property that he's leased to someone else. Mathes: Oh. Okay. Centers: Would he have to get a variance to the ordinance in order to park in the back on his gravel lot or could we, as a Commission, recommend that to the Council, that he be allowed to park -- he and his employees. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, the Variance findings are pretty specific saying that you would have show a hardship in order to do that, say that there is a specific reason why he couldn't do that based on either topography or existing site conditions. There is nothing in existing site conditions that would prohibit him from paving that, so the Variance would probably not be the right direction to go for that. You could make that recommendation to Council that they waive that. There is nothing preventing you from doing that. Centers: Okay. That's -- Borup: But as it stands right now, he's in compliance with the parking requirement anyway. Centers: They are recommending two more. Borup: They have got them. No. They -- where are they recommending two more? Oh, he's recommending seven and that's what they have got. The discussion -- I think it started because where do the employees park and that's I guess -- and from what Mr. McKinnon said, there is no requirement for employees. This would be a self-service, just go, and buy it yourself. Centers: Well, I guess we need to hear from the applicant how many cars he intends to sell. That's the dictator is the number of cars. Borup: I still -- I mean that storage lot is not something that's accessed probably -- well, maybe we can find out, once a week? Would the applicant like to come forward or their representative? You have had a chance -- go ahead. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 53 of 81 Mortensen: Commissioners, Tom Mortensen on behalf of Mr. Kallenberger. Be happy to answer any questions for you. Borup: You have read the staff report? Mortensen: Yes. Borup: And you're in agreement with everything in the staff report? Mortensen: Yes. Borup: Okay questions from the Commissioners? Centers: How many cars does he intend to have on the lot for sale at one time? Mortensen: Well, being it's -- you know, this is a temporary thing, it's going to be two to three, two to three vehicles. Centers: Not a very big operation. Mortensen: No. Centers: Yes but you're in agreement with all the requirements that the -- Mortensen: Yes. Mr. Kallenberger and I reviewed the requirements and we are in agreement to comply with those. Centers: Fine with me. Borup: How about time frame for the trailer? How long are you -- do you have an idea? Mortensen: One to two years. Borup: Pardon? Mortensen: Not to exceed two years. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: I know Commissioner Centers clarified that you have read these and understand them, but I do want to pick one, because we do have a letter from the neighbor to your north who, I believe, says he supports the project, but wants to make sure the runoff is handled. You have read on Page 5, Standard Requirement Number 3 that you have to have a Drainage Plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect engineer? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 54 of 81 Mortensen: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. I guess that satisfies the neighbor. Mortensen: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify? Holstein: My name is William Holstein. I live directly to the east of the storage lot at the present time and Mr. Mortensen has been a pretty good neighbor. He put up a nice fence that covers up everything he's got stored inside. Incidentally, I live right across the street from the Dreamland Day Care Center and your observations on the use of the parking were quite astute. I don't think I have ever seen it over 50 percent occupied. I have several questions and I think I saw some strange looks on a couple faces up here and that one issue is what is a quality used car? Number 2 if you're selling a quality used car, wouldn't you want a quality sales office, rather a tin towing trailer for a sales office? I lived there as a resident and I, to be honest, plan on selling my property and it's turned into a business area, but I hate to see it turning into something like Garrity Road in Nampa. From what I saw here, I don't see that. In fact, I'd like to say that that landscaping in front on the Franklin side, I'd recommend you just leave it as it is. It doesn't make sense to move the fence -- Centers: Right here? Holstein: Yes -- if you do grant the permit. My big concern, I think, would be the -- number one, petroleum products store on the property. I don't see anything in the way of a detailing shop, which is great. With respect to the issue of the owner parking on a gravel parking lot, the owner of that car lot might own 20 or 30 cars, so I mean which one's his personal car and which one isn't? I think that's the reason, probably, the zoning ordinance reads the way they do on it. I'd still like to know what a quality used car is. Thank you for your time. Borup: Mr. McKinnon, did you say earlier you had a photo or a representation of the building or you thought you did? McKinnon: There was one that was submitted and I know that it was included in the application. You may not have received a copy. Borup: We didn't. McKinnon: Okay. I usually send everything out to the Clerk's Office and it didn't make it back, but Jessica might have it in her report. Borup: Okay. I think that's what I was wondering so, it's an office type of -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 55 of 81 McKinnon: I can put that on the overhead if you'd like. Zaremba: Well, I would just say I agree with the previous speaker, in that we do want attractive buildings when they are built along here and that supports Commissioner Centers point that we should state a time limit on how long the temporary building can be there. Borup: Well, I think that was the neighbor's concern that it wasn't going to be a camp trailer with wheels showing and everything. Is that what you were worried? Holstein: That would be kind of an over-exaggeration. Borup: Yes. Okay. Did that answer your question, too, on what they had planned? That's the type of -- I don't think that's the exact one, but that's the type that they said they were planning. Holstein: Is this -- Borup: You need to get back on the microphone. Holstein: I apologize. Is that an existing building on an existing lot that they have at the present time or -- Borup: No. I think that's representing -- my understanding is that's representative of the type of building they are planning on. Holstein: Is there a Finish Line Automotive existing at the present time, so that one might see what kind of an operation they do is or this a totally new enterprise? Maybe address that. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Did we have anyone else to testify? Mr. Mortensen, do you have any final comments? Maybe you could answer that last question and, then, see if the Commissioners have any other questions. Mortensen: Okay. Borup: The question was is that an existing business or is this new? Mortensen: This is a new business. We don't have any other affiliations with anybody else. Borup: Okay. Centers: While you're here, the landscape buffer that adjoins that existing storage fence, you heard your neighbor say that he was satisfied with the way it is, but are you prepared to move the fence back 10 feet and provide 10 more feet of buffer? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 56 of 81 Mortensen: Well, we were hoping we could keep in compliance with -- or with the way that it exits, you know. Borup: But you would be prepared to move that at the time when the rest of the site was developed and a permanent building would be put in? Mortensen: Yes. Borup: I mean that's what I would expect. I don't know about the other Commissioners, but -- okay. Commissioners? Zaremba: I move the Public Hearing be closed. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Centers: Mr. Chairman -- well, unless someone wants to discuss it, I would like to -- you will still have that opportunity -- recommend approval of CUP 03-010, request for a Conditional Use Permit to obtain a dealer's license and sell quality used cars and trucks in an I-L zone for Finish Line Automotive by Lyle Lee Kallenberger at 44 Northwest 10th Street, including all staff comments. In addition, the applicant has requested the temporary use of a trailer, a picture of which was shown tonight and it should be representative -- the finished product should be representative of that picture with a maximum term of usage to be two years. End of motion. Rohm: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 10. Public Hearing: AZ 03-005 Request for annexation and zoning of 61.33 acres from RUT and C-G zones to an R-8 zone for proposed Verona Subdivision by Primeland Development, LLP – northeast corner of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road: Item 11. Public Hearing: PP 03-003 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 174 building lots and 15 other lots on 61.69 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Verona Subdivision by Primeland Development, LLP – northeast corner of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 57 of 81 Item 12. Public Hearing: CUP 03-007 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for 148 detached single-family dwellings, 20 townhomes, 6 office lots, 6 shared driveway lots, 15 open space lots, including addition to community park in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Verona Subdivision by Primeland Development, LLP – northeast corner of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road: Borup: The next item -- actually, we are going to be opening three Public Hearings, AZ 03-005, a request for annexation and zoning of 61.33 acres from RUT and C-G zones to an R-8 zone for the proposed Verona Subdivision by Primeland Development. Public Hearing PP 03-003, request for preliminary plat approval of 174 building lots and 15 other lots on the same property by the same applicant. Public Hearing CUP 03-007, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for 148 detached single-family dwellings, 20 townhomes, six office lots, six shared driveway lots, 15 open space lots, and a community park in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Verona Subdivision by Primeland. Again, I'd like to open all three Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Again, on the overhead -- we have used it a lot tonight, but this is going to give you a good idea of the project we are working on tonight. To the south, you can see this is the Bridgetower Subdivision that was approved and Lochsa Subdivision that was approved. It's on the north side where this community park was planned, approximately 25 acres. Residential coming down, with some commercial fronting onto McMillan within Lochsa. As part of the Bridgetower Subdivision this -- my computer is making strange noises. Hang on a second. Borup: We can't hear it, so it just bothers you. McKinnon: Okay. It's not noted on this site plan, but this property right here was also part of the Bridgetower and that was approved for commercial use as part of their 20 percent land use exceptions. We, essentially, have some commercial properties that border this, plus, some residential. This Site Plan will make a whole lot of sense the way they have got it laid out. Lochsa Falls has some commercial, some multi-family over on the east side and they have brought forward some office commercial and some townhouses adjacent to the multi-family. In addition to that, the commercial piece of property within Bridgetower is surrounded by Verona Subdivision, and rather than putting all that commercial adjacent to the residential, they have buffered that with office uses. I'll move forward to the next slide. As I noted earlier, the Lochsa Falls Subdivision, approximately, had a 25 acre park and, as you remember, when we approved Lochsa Falls we required that the sewer line come through Lochsa Falls park area in a 14-foot wide road that was going to be the multi-use pathway. It was going to break up this subdivision from the other subdivision it was going to run right through there. Now, they are planning on running the sewer line through Verona and they can provide a detached 10-foot multi-use pathway that runs parallel to the collector road that comes in. As part of the approval for this subdivision, the applicant has agreed to Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 58 of 81 construct the pathway and to construct all of the landscaping in between the pathway and the road right of way prior to occupancy of the buildings in the first phase. The applicant is here tonight and they have brought a Site Plan that would revise this somewhat and I will just address what those issues are, but I will let the applicant address it more fully. The original application showed a number of small lots that would be common driveways and the applicant has now removed those common driveways, so all the information provided to you about common driveways will probably revised tonight with what the applicant has submitted. In addition to removing those, the applicant is going to request that there be an additional roadway located here to connect these two blocks and create another small block, rather than have those disconnected and the reason for that is because the sewer system is very shallow in this area and I will let Bruce address that issue or Becky. Basically, we have residential all along Lochsa here, an additional 4.57 acres of park land is being dedicated to the city to be included with the 25 acres from Lochsa. We end up with a 30-acre park there, just as the Comprehensive Plan notes down below that there should be a park in that area, a community park, which is typically 30 acres in size. It's a very clean application. The applicant has written a response back to the staff report and the responses were in the affirmative and -- Bruce, could you change that over right now? Well, if this doesn't work, we do have some of the larger plats that were provided to us tonight that we can put on some foam core for you and take a look at it. There it is. One more out, Bruce, and we are probably there. Okay. Without the technical difficulties, the applicant has provided all of the setbacks as required. One thing that I would like to point out that's going to be a relatively interesting discussion tonight, as pointed out in the staff report, is in regards to the relocation of the McMillan lateral. The McMillan lateral is being relocated. It currently runs diagonally through the property, it's this waterway that runs, essentially, diagonally through this piece of property. It was originally thought that this McMillan lateral was a users lateral and was not part of the Setter's Irrigation system. However, Setter's Irrigation is requesting now that that be included as part of their system, because they do have a well that pumps water into that to supplement the amount of water that is in that ditch. The reason why this becomes an interesting issue is the applicant has proposed to relocate the McMillan lateral down through the landscape buffer on Ten Mile and back up the collector road and up to the landscape buffer and Settler's Irrigation District requires a 30-foot easement over any of their tile pipes, their tiled ditches. That would preclude the applicant from being able to plant -- typically, it would preclude them from being able to plant trees and other types of shrubbery over two feet in height within their easement, so that creates a situation where we have some landscaping that may be prohibited based on the location of the relocated ditch. The applicant has provided the staff with some information regarding tree roots and other information, the fact that they don't infiltrate into these types of systems. However, the decision needs to be made by the Irrigation District if they do have jurisdiction over this ditch, whether or not they will allow that. The applicant has had some discussion with them and concerning what types of planting they would allow within the 30-foot easement. If there is no plantings -- if they are not allowed to plant trees within the 30-foot easement, there may be some alternative compliance that would need to be looked at for landscaping and maybe there may be -- I'm using maybe a lot. There might be a requirement that they place those trees and other landscaping Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 59 of 81 outside of that easement further back in on these office lots. It's zoomed out quite a bit, but you can tell that the buildings are actually set much further back than 30 feet from the right of way and so some additional plantings could be planted further back than 30 foot or the width of the easement. That's really the main point of contention with this project that we had of staff. You should all have received a copy from Engineering Solutions responding back to the staff report and, again, as I noted earlier, it's very much in the affirmative, that they agree with most of the conditions of approval, as indicated by staff in the staff report. With that I would ask if you have any questions of staff and turn the time back over to you for your Public Hearing. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: Just one. On the collector road that defines the park, is car parking allowed along that road? McKinnon: No. Zaremba: So how do people use the park? Just the local people walk in? McKinnon: Local people can walk in. If I remember correctly, in the landscape plan it indicates that there will be a parking lot in this area. Borup: Okay. There was parking off -- Zaremba: Off of Ten Mile? Borup: Yes. Zaremba: It was pretty small. McKinnon: Yes and Lochsa -- as Lochsa develops and the park develops, there was another planned parking area within the Lochsa park generally in that location, somewhat further to the north and the applicant can help address those issues. Borup: Did you have any -- I notice there was a request -- I mean for a reduction in house size to 1,200 feet. Well, I guess you answered it. You had no objection. McKinnon: This is a Planned Development. They have requested the 1,200 square foot minimum. That's very similar to the recent request that was made by Parkstone with their 1,200 square foot minimum. In addition to that, there was originally -- the revised plat has change from this, but there was originally a request for the single-family dwelling detached to be able to have a 6,000 square foot lot, rather a 6,500 square foot lot. However, based on the revisions, that they have made, like taking out the common lots and the common driveway lots, the 6,000 square foot lot, of which there was only one, has now been eliminated. That request would be removed by the adoption of the submission of the applicant's revised plat. Bruce and I have had a chance just to -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 60 of 81 from the beginning of the meeting to take a look at this and we, actually, believe that the new layout for this actually fits better as far as circulation and as far as the development works and it gets rid of those common lots that were used for driveways. Now they can all take access off of an existing public road, rather than having the flag lots off of the common driveways. We feel that this is, actually, an improvement over what was previously submitted. Mathes: Dave, is there a school lot in here? I didn't see one. McKinnon: The closest school would be in Bridgetower. It's an elementary school. Mathes: Okay. Because the Fire Marshall put one school lot in Item Number 11, six office lots and one school lot. McKinnon: I'm going to guess that that's a mistake, that Joe was carrying that over, probably, from the Parkstone comments. Borup: Okay. Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? If not, is the applicant ready for their presentation? McKay: Becky McKay, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, is my office address. I'm representing Primeland Development with this application. This is the Verona Subdivision, which is another extension of the Bridgetower Crossing project just north of McMillan Road and east of Ten Mile. As Dave indicated, we adjoin Lochsa Falls along our eastern boundary and along our northern boundary. If you recall, when Lochsa came through, there was considerable discussion about putting a collector along the south boundary of that proposed park and that it was the intent of the Parks Department and their parks plan that that be a 30 acre facility. I think I argued that there would be no opportunity to add any acreage to that park if that collector was placed there. Luckily, the Commission supported us in that and when I came -- when this particular project came about, I took the comments that we had discussed earlier on Lochsa and incorporated that into my design. Instead, of putting the collector here like we had originally planned, that collector is right here it's called Belogio. That collector would serve the park. We have 4.57 acres that we will be dedicating to the city, not asking for any park impact fee credits. We will also be building the ten foot asphalt multi-use pathway along here and, then, we have a single loaded local street here called Malta linking into this stub street and, then, it will turn -- and, then, terminate right there. That will allow like the parking facility that was on the south boundary of Lochsa to move south and they will be able to take access off that collector. ACHD will not allow any parking along a collector roadway. This Malta being a local street, they could park along that roadway. I have met with the new parks director Doug Strong and Elroy Huff. We did take this project before the Parks Commission last month. The Parks Commission looked at it, they were very pleased. We indicated that they should start doing some type of conceptual planning of their park, since we will be designing this roadway here shortly and, obviously, we would want to stub sewer and water out, so that they could have restroom facilities or other facilities in that community park. The two amenities as our PUD is the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 61 of 81 donation of that park and we will also be landscaping along our collector, because we don't know what the timetable is going to be for development of that park. I spoke to the parks director about that also and they thought that that was a good idea and we'd, obviously, coordinate with them on a link to their future sprinkler system and as far as the plantings and so forth. We have got 35 feet of buffer running along Ten Mile Road. We were concerned about Ten Mile, because it will be at some point in time a five lane roadway, so we tried in our designs to make sure that we have buffers. We have this commercial area that we have planned with our Bridgetower Crossing project to the south. We decided to -- this is in alignment with our access to the south here and this is another collector we call Carerra that loops through. These are all offset, so that they are full access. Ada County Highway District staff and the traffic engineers complimented us on this design, because this allows for additional capacity at the intersection. People will have the ability as this area grows to utilize this collector and make that free right like you find over there at the R.C. Willey at Franklin Road, Eagle Road area. We proposed that this will be like an office or church use. These will be offices, possibly a church, possibly a day care, so we are going to have what we call C- G or regional type commercial here and we transition to the office and, then, this is 20 detached -- or attached single family dwellings. They are just in pods of two. The office area right through here in Lochsa we matched up with that, so their driveway would link through us and, then, intersect with our collector and, then, we pull that down into the commercial. We will have interconnectivity through like a cross-access driveway. This was designated as multi-family in the Lochsa project and that's why I stuck these townhomes up against that. Then, we matched up the single-family lots along that eastern perimeter. Getting back to Ten Mile. We tried to incorporate kind of a different type design with what we call a shared driveway where we kind of stack our lots. It allows us to get a little higher density and to -- to have some more affordable product along that corridor. One problem that we -- that we found -- we have been working on our hard design, which is we call it when we are doing the sewer, the water, and the street design for a subdivision and it gets shallow as it gets over along this eastern boundary. We still have the -- we can meet the minimum cover, but we may have to do a little bit of fill here. In evaluating this design we determined -- the engineer determined that it would be in our best interest and best interest of the city if we connected these two streets and, then, got rid of these multi-use driveways. Like in this area here, the sewer was shallow and, then, once you run it back into this Y-type driveway it became even shallower. I talked with your Public Works Department about it yesterday, we made this particular change, and the change is due to the sewer. Obviously, the deeper the sewer the better off we are. We can't help the elevation of the sewer in Ten Mile, it is what it is, because it comes of the plan at a particular invert and, then, it's carried on. It's just the way these properties are out here, some of these are very flat and we have to deal with the issue of sewer. Here we came through and just basically backed up these lots. We still have to bring sewer through some pedestrian walkways. We also still provide a pedestrian walkway going out to the park so it added a little bit more street. We lost, I think, one particular -- one lot in doing this. Those lots are about 60 by 102 and, then, they will still have the 35-foot buffer behind them so, it didn't change it a lot. The density remained pretty much the same at 3.2 dwelling units per acre is what our net density is. The Comprehensive Plan designates Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 62 of 81 this area as medium density, three to eight, so we are in that bottom range for your density. We are asking for the 20 percent exception. We are utilizing approximately 16 percent and that would include the office uses within that R-8 zone that we are requesting. We have also asked for some reduction in home sizes. We find that even though we have that -- the lower square footage, say like 1,200 square feet that the homes are typically larger than that and we have very few that are at that minimum. I don't think in any of my subdivisions we find that they are just right at that minimum. We have those single family attached lots. Those are 5,000 square feet. I think we asked for 1,100 square foot minimum on those facilities. The setbacks -- we are asking for your standard setbacks, except for the zero lot line. We did go before the Ada County Highway District commissioners on this project. They have indicated that there is a level of service C out in this area, C or better, I believe, is what they stated. The commission did approve this project. We show right of way along Ten Mile and along McMillan Road. Ada County Highway District, as you're well aware, if it's not in their CIP, they will not be purchasing any right of way. We did go on the record at the Ada County Highway District commissioner meeting that we will donate that right of way to the Highway District and in the event that they ever impose extraordinary impact fees, then, we would ask for some type of reimbursement. Under the normal impact fees, we will just donate it without any credits whatsoever. Dave talked about Settler's Irrigation District. Settler's is a funny entity. You talk to them one day and they tell you that the facility is a users ditch, you talk to them another day and they claim that it's their facility. They have indicated they sent a letter calling that McMillan lateral that comes through here and, then, traverses this property and goes out to the west. They didn't indicate on their transmittal that we originally received that they wanted any specific easement, they just said that there would have to be some type of easement and that it needed to be, obviously, protected. I was told it was a users ditch and, then, Settler's came back and said, no, it's our ditch. Then, I said, well, I thought it was a users ditch. They said, well, we are a user, because we have a well in the corner and we dump water into it. I'm not quite sure that they have jurisdiction and I guess what I'm suggesting is that you allow us to work that out with Settler's. I'm going to ask them for some documentation. You provide us with some documentation that it is your ditch and, then, we will go ahead and go through all your hoops of license agreement and so forth. We have got to pipe the facility, there is no doubt about that, but it's best if we keep them in these landscape lots. You know, if we run them to the rear of lots, then, you have got the issue of at some point in time there is going to be maintenance, they have got to get back there. We were proposing picking it up here, running it down a common lot, coming across that collector, and, then, running it down here and, then, out and exiting it there so, that's the best scenario that, as Dave indicated, if it is their facility they typically won't allow us to plant trees. Now, we are dealing with that in Bridgetower Crossing on the Coleman lateral and what we have done is our landscape architects have drawn up a particular drawing and did some research I think with the University of Florida. There are certain types of trees that the roots only go down a couple of feet and with that being a concrete pipe and if the tree is planted offset, not over the top of the pipe, the landscape architects indicate that we won't have conflict. I did provide a copy of that information to Dave for your staff to look at and, then, we have submitted it to Settler's for them to review. We have got a good project here. I think we have done Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 63 of 81 everything that the staff and the Council asked of us. We feel that this is going to compliment this area. Services are coming up Ten Mile Road right now. Sewer and water is being extended. It's right about here at this point in time and it will be extended up. We have already granted an easement to the City of Meridian for sewer and water to come down this street and go up into Lochsa Falls so, that's been done. I do apologize for making these lot changes before the meeting, but it was something that -- it, obviously, had to be done due to the sewer issues and the sooner we did it the better. I wouldn't want to make that change after I got out of this body. I think it doesn't impact the -- make any difference as far as the project is concerned. We still have good circulation, vehicular and pedestrian, and the density -- the number of lots remains the same. It's probably a little bit better, because we won't, like Dave said, have the complexity of the shared driveways, and who maintains them and how you keep them clean of snow and so forth. Do you have any questions? Borup: Questions from the Commission? McKay: Oh, yes. One other thing, sorry, sir Bill Clark, representing Mr. Gibson, who is on our eastern boundary, he and I did have a conversation. He sent a letter to me, I submitted to the staff. All that they asked is in our Development Agreement that there be some statement recognizing that this Planned Development has been approve on the eastern boundary and that at some point in time this will be multi-family. This will be an office use, because they are assuming that this development will develop prior to them and they don't want problems in the future, they want it as our part of our Development Agreement recognizing them. That's it. Thank you. Borup: I have got a couple of questions. Do any other Commissioners? Zaremba: A couple of small one. Borup: Go ahead. Zaremba: First off, thank you for the park. I remember when we were going through Lochsa and you couldn't promise anything about this client, but you have delivered everything we imagined and I like the parking arrangement within the park. That looks good, too. You mentioned -- I can see that you have -- you're continuing this roadway to get into another subdivision's commercial area. Is there another access like up here? McKay: Yes, sir. Zaremba: Did I see that? That they will be able to have all those facilities without, actually, having access to either one of the major streets is that correct? McKay: That is correct. Lochsa can come in through that shared driveway running across their office lots and our residents will be able to come into the commercial. If that is like say an Albertson's, for example, they would all be able to go into it without ever going on the arterials. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 64 of 81 Zaremba: Your clients reap a great benefit by having you do all of this. Just a personal comment that's all I have. Borup: Commissioner Centers did you say you had a question? Centers: Yes. You normally submit a little different draft and you normally say applicant will comply, will comply, will comply, but this time you had a lot of comments and I suspect someone else wrote this. McKay: Yes. That's correct. Centers: And whoever S.S. is, that could be the person but that's really irrelevant. You're in agreement with all the staff comments, requirements, et cetera, but you want some flexibility on the McMillan lateral, is that safe to say? McKay: Yes, sir. Centers: Because I haven't had a chance to ready everything. McKay: Yes, sir. The statements -- I think the only thing that was brought up was the issue of the easement and, obviously, complying with the tree every so many feet along that collector. I don't think we had any other items that were of contention, other than the staff does ask us to specify our phasing lines. The phase lines on this particular project are dictated by the sewer and we just got those worked out. We are building the single family detached in two phases, starting up here on the north, taking in this collector and this area right in here and, then, we will go -- this is the second -- that is the second phase and, then, obviously, probably a third phase and, then, a fourth phase. The office would most likely be last. I anticipate approximately four phases and we will provide the staff with those hard phase lines now that we have got the sewer issues all resolved. Centers: Well, that's their requirement, Becky, that -- staff level approval, so we are fine there. The 4.7 acres -- and thank you. You're giving it to the city. McKay: Yes, sir. Centers: And we are going to maintain it. I agree with that. I think that's -- you remember another subdivision that -- McKay: Yes, sir. Centers: I agree with that. That's great. We are going to have it and maintain it for eternity. I think that's the way to do it. Refresh my memory on Bridgetower. That land was purchased by that city, though. There were 23.4 -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 65 of 81 McKay: You mean Lochsa? Centers: Lochsa. McKay: Lochsa. On Lochsa that developer donated five acres, which ended up being a little more than five. I think closer to six, because ACHD changed their right of way requirement and, then, they will get impact fee credits on the remaining 20 acres. Centers: That was it. Yes. McKay: So, Primeland on this particular development donated the 4.57. Then, they are building the collector also. Centers: Well, to get the credit for the Planned Unit Development and the credits that you want, I think that's the way it should work. McKay: I think it's fair. Yes, sir. Centers: And maintain it. Okay. Thank you. Borup: Anyone else? A couple of questions, Becky and, again, I'd like to echo what they said about the park. I think when we left the last meeting, I came away with the impression that this applicant wasn't willing to do much there and I know it affected my attitude at the time. I'm very pleased with the way it came out. I was interested -- and this is just more -- one thing for my information on donating the right of way. I think last -- I don't remember what meeting it was, but I asked that question to someone at ACHD whether that wouldn't be able to do that, because that's the way to solve some of the problems we -- potential problems we got here as far as traffic. I was told at that time that that could not happen by law. Has that been resolved or was that a misstatement at that time? Because it used to -- it used to happen all the time and, then, they said -- or is that whether it was in their work plan or not was that the difference? McKay: Commissioner Borup, to answer your question, I think somebody misspoke, because they are putting statements in their staff reports now that that's one option, that you can donate the right of way, knowing full well that you won't get any credits or financial reimbursement. It says -- yes. Dedicate by donation additional 23 feet of right of way along Ten Mile. Borup: Does anybody else remember that statement? Was it before this Commission or another meeting I was at? McKay: They can't force you to donate. Borup: Right. McKay: If it -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 66 of 81 Borup: Well, they said they couldn't even accept -- I was told they couldn't even accept a donation until the state law was changed. McKay: Obviously, they have changed -- Borup: Well, I think that was -- we asked them to research that, because I, for one, felt that was a solution to the development of this area, either that or not have the development. I thought that was a much better -- and leave that up to the developer to either donate and develop or not donate and wait. McKay: Yes. Borup: Is probably what it would come down to. McKay: Commissioner Wynkoop asked us point blank if we would be willing to donate the land, because he said all -- you know, the developers in this North Meridian Area have indicated that -- that they'd like to assist us in making sure that these roadways are improved and that's one way that you can help by donating that land. Borup: I'm glad that got worked out. McKay: So, we are the first -- I believe this is the first project to make that overture. Borup: Okay. That's why I brought that up. I assume -- that's something we were looking for and looking for in others, too. You started something either good or bad, depending on which side. One other question on the reduced -- on the reduced square footages are you asking for a reduction on the ground floor? Are you aware there is a minimum 1,850 square foot on the ground floor? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it's an 800 square foot. McKay: 800 square foot. Borup: What did I just say? McKay: 1,850. Borup: I mean -- 850 was what I meant to say. I'm sorry. McKay: 850 on the ground. You mean if it were a two story? Borup: Yes. McKay: Yes. I have seen that in the ordinance, yes. I'm aware of that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 67 of 81 Borup: And you're fine with that? I mean if they want a reduction in that ground floor, wouldn't this be the time to do it? McKay: I don't think that's problematic. Borup: Okay. McKay: No, sir. Borup: I just know it's been a problem in other subdivisions. I think the statement was that they could have -- a reduction could have been requested at the same time, but after the fact it's too late. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, typically, that is included in the staff report as one of the requested reductions in a Planned Development. There was one subdivision in the last year -- well, actually, it's been three that have requested that and one where it wasn't brought out in the staff report. Borup: They requested a reduction on the ground floor also? McKinnon: They did. That's correct. Borup: But if they don't request it, then -- McKinnon: If they don't request it, the chance is gone. Borup: I know that has happened in at least one situation. McKinnon: That's correct. Borup: Okay so, you're fine with the way it is? I just want to point that out. This would be the time to do if you wanted. Thank you. Centers: One other question. Do you expect to have the McMillan and Settler's situation done prior to City Council? McKay: The wheels move slowly at Settler's. Centers: Yes. That's what I thought you -- McKay: On Bridgetower Crossing we have been working with them for three years now -- three years and we have finally resolved our differences, but they flip-flop on us continuously. I have complained profusely to their board. We typically deal with it by the time those construction plans and the Final Plat hit your staff it has to be resolved, because your staff is wanting to know what were piping. Where we are piping it and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 68 of 81 how we are protecting it and get a letter from Settler's, so I don't think we have ever encountered a problem, have we, Bruce? Centers: Okay. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Any final comments from staff? McKinnon: Sure. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if I could get you to turn to Page 8 of the staff report, Item Number 4, and that's where we added our comments concerning the McMillan lateral. We worded quite a bit of flexibility into the landscaping there and it talks about how to landscape. The McMillan later shall be in compliance with Meridian City Code 12-13, which is the Landscape Ordinance, and in compliance with the requirements of Settler's Irrigation District, if applicable. Then, a further statement from clarification that if landscaping cannot be accommodated in the easement and in accordance with MCC 12-13, the applicant will need to request a variance or revise the landscaping and location of the McMillan lateral. I think we have got the flexibility worded in there. I don't know if we need to -- Centers: I think the applicant would agree, don't you? Yes. McKinnon: So, I think that we really have the major issue handled right there on Page 8 for -- just, again, this is a pretty smooth project and we are fully behind it and we are also appreciative of the park land that they have donated and I think that's all the comments I have. Do you have anything, Bruce? Freckleton: Nothing further. Centers: I had one question for the applicant. She doesn't need to come back up, but we didn't have anyone else here. Do we have an affidavit on file that you posted the property? McKay: Yes, sir. Centers: Thank you. Mathes: I had a question on that. She was the notary on that -- on the -- on the person signing. Can she do that? McKinnon: Becky, were you the notary for yourself? McKay: No. Mathes: No. Someone else said they posted, but she filed the CUP saying that it was posted and she signed that part. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 69 of 81 McKinnon: Well, that's okay. That's not a problem. That's fine. Mathes: Okay. Centers: I'd like to move that we close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: Second on all three items? Centers: Yes on all three. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing on all three items. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would like to recommend approval of AZ 03-005, request for annexation and zoning of 61.33 acres from RUT and C-G zones to an R-8 zone for proposed Verona Sub by Primeland Development, LLP, northeast corner of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road, including all staff comments. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Centers: Also, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to recommend approval of PP 03-003, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 174 building lots or as revised. McKinnon: 172. Centers: -- 172 and 15 other lots on 61.69 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Verona Sub by Primeland Development, LLP, northeast corner of West McMillan Road and Ten Mile Road, including all staff comments. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, if I could add one thing to -- well, make that two things. The revised Site Plan has 16, rather than 15 open space lots, if you would be acceptable to change your motion to that. Centers: So amended. McKinnon: And, in addition to that, if you could adopt the plat that was submitted with the revision date April 3, 2003, as the one that's being adopted tonight? Centers: So amended. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 70 of 81 McKinnon: Thank you. Freckleton: One other thing, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make sure that we include the recommend language from Bill Clark for the inclusion in the findings, that we recognize -- or the development. That we recognize the existence of the development next door and their approvals for their commercial and -- Centers: So included. Zaremba: I second all of that. Borup: Okay. Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Centers: Also, recommend approval of CUP 03-007, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for 148 detached single-family dwellings -- is that still -- are we still on board with 148 SFR's? McKinnon: 146. Centers: So amended. McKinnon: That was 146. Sorry, it wasn't on the microphone. Centers: And 20 townhomes? McKinnon: That's correct. Centers: Six office lots? McKinnon: That's correct. Centers: Six shared driveway lots? McKinnon: No. Those have been eliminated. Centers: Eliminate those 15 open space lots. McKinnon: Sixteen. Borup: Sixteen. Centers: Fifteen? Borup: Sixteen. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 71 of 81 McKinnon: Sixteen. Centers: Sixteen including addition to community park in proposed R-8 zone for proposed Verona Sub by Primeland Development, LLP, at the northeast corner of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road, including all staff comments. Zaremba: Second with enthusiasm. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Centers: I think that's the first time I have seen a development this large where there were not a lot of additions, deletions, so it was -- you must have had a good neighborhood meeting and a good meeting with staff. McKay: We have no neighbors. Zaremba: And, besides, what neighbors there is she’s in control of. Item 13. Public Hearing: CUP 03-009 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the development of a rental / restaurant complex in a C-C zone for Hark’s Corner by Van Hees Properties, LLC – southwest corner of West Franklin Road and South Linder Road: Borup: Okay. Are we ready to go home? Mr. Van Hees are you sure you want us to go ahead? Okay. Well, let's open the Public Hearing for -- I'd like to open the Public Hearing CUP 03-009, request for Conditional Use Permit for Development of a rental -- that should retail, I'm assuming -- retail-restaurant complex in a C-C zone for Hark's Corner by Van Hees Properties. I'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I'm going to speak from the -- standing up. After my less than eloquent presentation in the last project, I thought it would be appropriate to come up and try something different. Borup: You do that on the last one every time. McKinnon: Must be a habit. Hark's Corner. You may all be familiar with it. There is currently an Arctic Circle, Coffee Kiosk, a gas station, and a car wash. It's currently located approximately two-thirds of the site that we have in bold. The project that we are going to talk about tonight, if you could forward, Bruce, it's going to be on the west side. There you go. The car wash is located right here. You can just barely see the edge of the building. The Coffee Kiosk is located up where I'm highlighting right now on the right-hand side, the eastern portion of the property. Tonight we will be looking at a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 72 of 81 small taco drive-thru facility located adjacent to Franklin Road. It's very similar in location and size to the Coffee Kiosk that's located just to the east. We have a specialty retail-type store located in this location and somewhat of a small strip-type development located in the very rear of the subdivision in the southwest corner. When we originally approved the Hark's Corner project we allowed a five foot landscape buffer along the southern edge of the property adjacent to the homeowner that's directly to the south of this project. In addition to the reduced buffer, there was a requirement for an eight-foot tall solid masonry fence and the applicant provided the eight-foot tall masonry fence and plans on continuing that fence the full length of the property. The full length of the property would be all the property that the neighbor has. They, essentially, end in the same location. It's a single-family residence that's rural residential in nature. It's over an acre in size. It has some -- it looks like a loafing shed in the back of the property and some livestock that are shielded from view by the inclusion of the new fence. Within the staff report there is quite a bit of discussion concerning the landscape buffers and one of the land -- the major issue with the landscape buffer is the separation between land uses. The applicant is here tonight to discuss that and I believe the neighbor to the south is here to discuss tonight their views on the eight-foot fence and how that's been very appropriate as a buffer, rather than a 25 buffer between land uses. Additionally, there is a requirement for the landscape located on the eastern -- on the western edge, I'm sorry. The western edge of the property between the land uses and the applicant has requested that they not be required install all of the buffer at this time, because it's unknown as to how that will develop. On the Comprehensive Plan it's shown as going to -- help me out, Larry. That's mixed-use. That's correct and so we don't know what's going to be there and so he's requesting not have to do the full 25-foot buffer at this time, so that whatever use comes in here you will be able to provide the additional buffer. If a commercial use comes on the west side, they would be required to match the five-foot landscape buffer between parking. I'm going to jump over to Wendy's report and I had highlighted a couple of things to point out to you tonight. There are only three site-specific requirements that Wendy had listed. The first one has to deal with the landscaping and when you make your motion tonight, if you would -- if you are recommending approval of the reduced buffer for this with the fence, you have the ability to do that. Because this is being presented to you tonight as a planned development and in the Planned Development Ordinance, you are allowed to reduce the buffers. It would not require a variance, necessarily, unless you feel that it necessitates a Variance. You may want to change the wording on the site-specific requirements, Page 4, Number 1. In addition to that, there is just the two comments concerning the setbacks that require them to meet the required setbacks of the water and sewer issues and Bruce can address those, but water and sewer is available to this site, as it is available to the other sites within this project. One thing I would point out that's not in the staff report and I have got Larry behind me, so he can hear it. In the original project, we required that they put deciduous trees out there and we had a landscape plan and instead of planting the trees on the Landscape Plan, they planted a lot of pine trees. You might remember, the pine trees that were there, they are now not there, and the other trees. The landscape plan that was submitted is approved as submitted, if you approve it tonight with the reduction of that and Larry will be on board to plant all those trees in accordance with his landscape plan this time. A special note Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 73 of 81 to that is in that five-foot buffer on the south side, if you approve that with the eight-foot fence, he shows that there are three trees within that buffer. When we went through the Variance for the rest of this property, they were able to remove the trees from that buffer and if we approve that buffer with the eight-foot fence, those trees should remain, in the opinion of staff, rather than being removed. With that, I would ask if you have any questions of myself or Bruce and we can turn the time back over to you for your Public Hearing. Borup: Question from the Commissioners? Zaremba: I don't know if this is a question for you, but I will ask it and you can tell me where to take my question. McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: In the ACHD report, they are referencing the first phase of this project and saying that, for instance, driveway out onto Franklin Road is approved as a right in, right out, left in only. Therefore, no left out and requiring a median be built in Linder and I think I have driven in and out of that property and made a left out, so the median must not be there. McKinnon: The median is not there, having made that left turn myself a number of times. There is a sign that says right turn only as you exit from the site. Zaremba: I haven't noticed that. McKinnon: There is. Prior to occupancy being allowed for those buildings, they were required to have a signoff from ACHD that what they had was in accordance with their approval, so they have met the requirements for that according to ACHD, because they do have occupancy of those buildings. Zaremba: Okay. They don't have to build the median in Linder. One of the other paragraphs says that the Franklin driveway closest to Linder is also supposed to be right in, right out. ACHD has signed off on it, then, we don't need to do anything about that? McKinnon: I don't know the specifics of why it wasn't constructed, but I do know that occupancy was given and ACHD did sign off on what was constructed out there. Zaremba: Okay. No problem. Those are my only questions. Borup: Okay. Anyone else? Thank you. Anything you want to add, Mr. Van Hees? Van Hees: Really, I don't have anything to add. I think all of you are aware of Hark's Corner and everything that's there and if you have any questions, I'd just be glad to answer them. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 74 of 81 Borup: Questions from the Commission so, it is your intention to bring that block wall on down? Van Hees: Yes. That was an agreement that I made with Mr. Rohn, he's here, and we have worked very well together. We've tried to do everything that, really, he's requested and to make it work and he's very pleased with that eight-foot concrete fence and we just told him we'd take it all the way to the end and that's his choice. Centers: And that's kind of in lieu of the extended landscape buffer, which I tend to agree with. I think that fence is a lot more valuable than a few trees. Van Hees: Well, I think -- I really appreciated Keith's comment tonight about the distance and the sound. It doesn't help a lot and when you're only 250 feet deep to start with and putting the buffer up at Franklin Road and if you put a 25 foot buffer in the back, you have lost 50 feet out of 250 feet and it really makes some serious problem for getting traffic and parking and everything else and it's really helped us immensely and it looks great and I think, you know, as far as anybody coming and looking and saying, hey, it would look better with a buffer, we have never had anybody tell us that. We are very pleased with the way it is. Centers: Well, you know why that ordinance is there, Larry. It's there when you are adjacent to a residence. Van Hees: And I understand that. Centers: If you were adjacent to other commercial, it would be different. Van Hees: Agree. Centers: So, you have a neighbor that was very agreeable, so -- I remember the first hearing a couple years ago and -- Van Hees: Yeah. You guys were amazed that we could actually get somebody to support us there. Centers: Yeah. Right. Van Hees: We were, too, and we appreciate it. Borup: So, why doesn't the plan show that wall? Van Hees: Pardon? Borup: Why isn't it on the plan? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 75 of 81 Van Hees: I can't tell you that. I thought it was there. I told the architect to put it there. I told staff it was there. Everything knows it's there and it is there. Borup: It is there. Van Hees: And it will be on the next plan when it comes through to City Council. Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this application? Come forward. Van Hees: One thing. The Baja Taco Restaurant that's up front, I just want you to know that the gentleman sitting back here in the back is Victor Clark and he's the man that's going to be operating that restaurant and if you would like to hear anything from him or you have any questions about the Baja Taco Restaurant, which is at the top on the left, he's the man. Borup: Samples would have helped. Rohn: I just want to say that -- Borup: State your name. Rohn: Oh. Tom Rohn. I want to say that whoever -- the guy that Larry got to build the wall did a fabulous job. I have seen the same material used other places in town and it looks awful. This guy did a fantastic job. It's nice and straight and its looks very pretty. I prefer the wall now that I'm there, because, like I say, the sound, it's better than landscaping. Landscaping would have been a joke. The other thing I want to ask. I had a question for you guys that -- you see, it was kind of my idea those -- planting trees in the original -- I found a guy that was selling them real cheap and I told Larry, I said, hey, Larry, there is a great deal on some pine trees and so I'm kind of at fault when -- and I had a question, because when he got them in, the place looked fabulous. I mean it was the best looking landscape in Meridian, hands down. There was nothing that looked better. When you drove up to it, with the pines there, it really looked good. And they said, well, the police can't see in, you better take them down. And I thought that was odd, because in Eagle, which is -- most people that have been down there, it's a very pretty landscape around the business and stuff, Eagle has pine trees everywhere. Why not Meridian? Just my question. I just thought it was odd, because they look so much better than what is there now. I thought that was really silly. I mean just for esthetics, which I'm kind of into. So, I thought I'd ask that question and see -- I don't know. Borup: Maybe we can get some comment from staff on that. Because I had understood the change was because that wasn't the way it was submitted, but -- McKinnon: That's correct. Mr. Chairman, the last statement you made is absolutely correct. What was submitted was something entirely different than the evergreens and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 76 of 81 so that was the first shock. The second one was there a variance requested for it and City Council determined that, no, the evergreens were not allowed per our code and there was no specific reason that they had to be planted there and they could have met the submitted landscape plan. For everybody's edification, Steve is working on a list of all of the landscape ordinance revisions and that's one of the things on his list is to allow evergreens to be in there. In addition to being esthetically pleasing, because of their bulk, they also provide greenery throughout the winter when the deciduous trees don't. And so that's something that we have had discussions with and it's something that Steve is working on right now with the landscape ordinance. So, it will happen. Rohn. The last thing I had was the last time I ask that the wall be constructed first, which worked out great, except that it did put Larry -- it kind of crimped him at times, because the materials didn't come in and I still would like it done first, but I don't want it to crimp his building this time. It got in the way of all the -- the materials didn't come in and he needed to break ground and he had to wait to do that, so I'd still like the wall to be done as quick as possible, but I don't want it to get in his way this time. So, I guess that -- thank you. Borup: Thank you. Anyone else? Commissioners have any other questions from -- Centers: Well, I think maybe a good requirement would be that the wall would be completed prior to occupancy of any of the newly constructed buildings, you know. And then, staff you said that with the continuation of that fence, if we allowed that and the minimum buffer for the -- the five foot buffer, you wanted all existing trees to remain? Was that the comment? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, the reason for that was just to -- just to rub Larry's nose in it just a little bit about the last time that it wasn't planted the same -- Centers: Well, I note that -- McKinnon: It was just a little jab at Larry. But the trees that -- there are three trees that they show back there in the landscape plan and when the first phase came through they showed a number of trees in that five foot buffer, too, and they came back and said we don't want to plant any trees in that buffer and there currently is no trees in the first phase of that buffer adjacent to the -- adjacent to that eight foot fence. There is some dogwood and some other shrubs, but there are no trees. I just wanted to point out that we wanted those trees to be there and they should be planted. Centers: But are you still saying that you want a revised landscape plan for the northern edge of the subject property? That's what it says on the site-specific requirement, line one. McKinnon: Yeah. Within the project boundaries they, essentially, stop right here right now with the landscaping and they don't show any additional landscaping on the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 77 of 81 landscape plan here and there are no trees planted here right now, it's just -- there is some grass, there is a red truck that's been parked out by the -- there were no plans submitted for that part of Franklin. Centers: When do you want that by? McKinnon: Ten days prior to City Council. Centers: Okay. Van Hees: Can I make a comment about the -- Borup: Come on up. Van Hees: There should be trees in that area. The trees are along that area, up in that -- up there. The trees are there. There were the pine trees, we took them out. With respect to the trees in the five-foot buffer in the back, we would have put them there and if you guys say put them there. We will put them there. The problem is when you have a have five foot strip next to an eight foot tall fence, our landscaper just advised us against it. He says if we put some brush -- some shrubs, some bushes that will grow tall, it's going to look really nice up against that eight foot fence, rather than trees that are struggling and you have to trim all the branches off the one side. I'm not a landscaper. I like nice looking landscaping and, you know, if -- you know, Dave says, hey, you're going to have to put them there and you guys agree with that, we will put trees there. I don't know how long they are going to live there, but we will put them there. Zaremba: Well, I was going to suggest as an alternate just what you said, a five foot wide landscape buffer with a wall there, if you actually plant trees and the trees survive to maturity, their roots are going to throw that fence out of alignment, it's not going to be the pretty straight thing that, apparently, the masonry person did and I was going to ask staff and the Commissioners if the alternate suggestion would be shrubbery. Junipers do not put down such heavy roots, but would still break up the view of the wall just a little bit. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, that's kind of the reason I bought it up. Zaremba: Okay. Yeah. Well, I'm in agreement -- Borup: So, we are talking about leaving the three trees? Zaremba: Leave the trees and put shrubs in or something. Centers: Well, I would move we close the Public Hearing. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 78 of 81 Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Centers: Okay. I would, Mr. Chairman, like to recommend approval of CUP 03-009, a request for a Conditional Use Permit for the development of a rental-restaurant complex in a C-C zone for Hark's Corner by Van Hees Properties, LLC, southwest corner of West Franklin Road and South Linder Road, including staff comments on page four, site specific comments, specifically items two and three. Item one under site specific would be changed to read like the following. The applicant would still have to submit a revised landscaping plan prior to City Council regarding northern edge of the subject property. The block wall at the southern edge of the property is to be extended to the full length of the property line and no later than first occupancy of any of these new buildings. The five-foot landscape buffer on the northern side of the wall could include shrubbery, such as junipers or the like, end of motion. Borup: Are you deleting the trees? Centers: Yeah. With no trees required. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: What are you doing back up here? McKinnon: I have got an item we need to talk about. Have you guys got your calendars, your Franklin Planners, your palm pilots? Borup: We discussed this last week, just a little bit about the joint meeting with the City Council. We did mention it. McKinnon: The 29th. I did get an e-mail today concerning what they wanted to have on the agenda for that, just so you guys can get your gears rolling. They wanted to find out what you felt needed to be changed quickest, prioritizing our zoning ordinance changes, some of the things that you'd like to see. That's one of the items that they would like to talk about. In addition to that, I believe that there is a stronger push now for you guys to be more than just the recommending body to City Council on a number of issues, where you guys would be the decision-making board for conditional use permits and that type of project, rather than just making a recommendation to Council. You guys would make the decision and if they wanted to appeal the decision to Council Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 79 of 81 they could, but once you made your decision it would not necessarily have to go in front of the City Council in the future and that would cut about a month's time. Borup: Isn't that the way Boise does it? McKinnon: Boise does it that way. Garden City does it that way. Eagle. You guys would become a little bit more powerful by that. That's one of the things I wanted to discuss with you, because there wouldn't be the safety net of it going to Council after it goes to you, unless it's appealed. Borup: More powerful. Do our salaries double? McKinnon: You get two turkeys at Christmas. Centers: I have always liked passing the buck. We wouldn't be able to do that anymore. McKinnon: Nope. Borup: Now, I assume that would be on conditional uses that would not accompany another application. McKinnon: Well, if you take a look at our Comp Plan, it basically says that any of the neighborhood centers, you guys would be the deciding board, period. So -- Borup: But I mean like a new application, like -- well, like the one we had tonight that has a Conditional Use Permit with -- McKinnon: Oh, with a preliminary plat. The preliminary plat would go to Council. That's correct. Borup: And the Conditional Use Permit would still go to there, too -- McKinnon: That's correct. Borup: -- I would assume on those type of -- McKinnon: But a stand-alone type conditional use would probably just be made by your decision, unless appealed. Zaremba: Well, the mechanics of it in that scenario is there were the tree items, the annexation and zoning, the preliminary plat and the CUP, then, our motion would have to be a conditional approval based on -- McKinnon: Just a recommendation. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 80 of 81 Zaremba: Yeah. We would recommend that the first two be approved and approve the third one subject to the first two being approved. Borup: Well, yeah, that would cover that. McKinnon: That's what they want to talk about, so the 29th mark down on your calendar Council wants to meet. Zaremba: What time do they -- McKinnon: I believe it would be a straight 7:00 o'clock type meeting, but when I checked with the clerk's office, they didn't have the agenda set for it or a time set for it. Centers: We are going to have something in our box, though? McKinnon: Absolutely. Centers: Yeah. Zaremba: Okay. McKinnon: I just wanted to double check with you guys and make sure you guys were available and it's something that -- Council would like to meet with you. I think that's about it. Unless you guys have anything else for us, I'm ready to go home. Rohm: I move we adjourn. Centers: Second. Borup: Do we want to, sometime between now and the 29th, discuss at all what -- Centers: Can't we, individually, bring our own little notes? Borup: Yeah. That's what I was wondering. Is that enough or do we need to get in the next -- McKinnon: You can bring your notes is fine. Centers: You know, it's funny, they have talked about this and talked about this and -- I remember when I first got on. This will be the second one that I'm aware of. Borup: A joint meeting? Centers: Yeah. They wanted to have it -- Borup: They wanted it every 5th Tuesday and -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 81 of 81 Centers: Yeah. Yeah. McKinnon: Twice a year. Borup: Actually, it's about four times a year, normally. Isn't that the way it -- usually five. McKinnon: A bunch. Borup: Or four a year. McKinnon: But you're lucky to get two a year to actually happen. Centers: But why have them if you don't have anything to talk about. Borup: I think we do. McKinnon: Okay. Borup: Maybe find out what their thinking is on some of these projects, like that half acre subdivision they turned down. I would be interested to know what their thought process was there, why we couldn't see something that they saw. Okay. McKinnon: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Call the question. Borup: Did we get that motion made? All right. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Meeting adjourned. 10:45. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:45 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED ______________________________ _____|_____|_____ KEITH BORUP - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 82 of 81 William G. Berg, Jr. – City Clerk